KEDAR CHARAN DEHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Deogarh dated 29.4.1993 in L.A. Misc. Case No. 51 of 1992 in a matter of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) BY Declaration No. 49933 dated 21.6.1994 the State Respondent acquired Ac.1.16 decimals or land of the Appellant for Rengali Dam Project (Reservoir). The Land Acquisition Zone Officer (hereinafter call 'the Zone Officer'), Barkot after inquiry computed the market value of the acquired land and trees standing thereon and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9,066.42 paise. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the Appellant filed a petition before the Zone Officer to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the proper amount of compensation. On this petition the Zone officer referred the matter to the Learned Subordinate Judge, Deogarh. The said Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Appellant examined himself as P.W.1, but he did not adduce any documentary evidence. No oral or documentary evidence was also adduced from the side of the present Respondent. After considering the evidence of P.W.1 and the materials available on record, the referral Court came to hold that the claim of annual income of the Appellant from the acquired land is inflated and he is also not entitled to get compensation by use of 20 multiplier. It was further held that the annual income assessed by the Zone Officer is proper and the use of 16 multiplier is also justified. In the result, reference was answered virtually accepting the compensation worked out by the Zone Officer, with the simple observation that the claimant is entitled to get further interest of Rs. 37.25 paise above that amount of compensation awarded. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) MR . Sangram Das, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that the claim of P.W.1 was not at all backed by any document or evidence and was unacceptable to the commonsense and therefore, referral Court had every justification of terming it as unreasonable and inflated. He states that the entire record of the land acquisition proceeding had been placed before the referral Court along with the reference petition and therefore, the Court had opportunity to see the process adopted by the Zone Officer in assessing the compensation, so, the observation of the referral Court cannot be termed as imaginary or hypothetical. He submits that on principle the land acquisition authorities were using 16 multiplier for all the lands acquired for Rengali Dam Project and therefore, claim of 20 multiplier by the Appellant is without any basis. In this regard he cited the case of State of Orissa v. GiridhariNayak 2006 (II) OLR 329 with a submission that 16 multiplier is also in the higher side.