LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SAMBALPUR Vs. TANKADHAR PADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh in L.A. Misc.Case No.68 of 1980.

(2.) AC . 10.16 decimals of land situated in village Ruhunia belonging to the claimant -respondents was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of Co -operative Sugar Mill by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, "the Act") published in Orissa Extraordinary Gazette No.2528 dated 19.1.1970. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs.28,991.50 paise for the land and Rs.437/ - for the trees standing thereon. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant -respondents prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the market value and the quantum of compensation for the land and trees. Accordingly, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bargarh. After recording the evidence of the parties, learned referral Court awarded a compensation of Rs.92,887.50 paise for the land including the value of the trees, 15% additional compensation for compulsory acquisition and 10% potential value. Learned Court also awarded 6% interest on the differential amount. The State preferred appeal against that award in First Appeal No.352 of 1982. In that appeal, the award was modified and direction was given to the referral Court to determine the market value of the acquired land adopting the following rates: Rs.4000/ - per acre for Atta land; Rs.6000/ - per acre for Mal land; Rs.7000/ - per acre for Berna land and passed the award accordingly. Pursuant to this direction, the parties filed calculation sheet and learned referral Court accepted the calculation sheet filed by the claimants and ruled that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,98,262.40 paise. The said order dated 2.9.1993 is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) MR . Pati, learned counsel for the respondent -claimants on the other hand argues that 10% potential value and 12% additional compensation had been awarded by the referral Court and the said award was never set aside by the appellate Court in F.A. No. 352 of 1982 and, therefore, there was no legal bar for including those benefits in the compensation. In the case of Arjun Sethi v. L.A. Collector, Cuttack and others, 85 (1998) CLT 742 this Court following the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the cases Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.Rs. etc., AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S. Paripooran v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1995 SC 1012, State of Punjab v. Avtar Singh and others, (1995) 1 SCC 383 and State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and another, AIR 1992 SC 473 formulated the following guidelines :