L A COLLECTOR Vs. SARAT CHANDRA SATPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack in L.A. Misc. Case No. 38/87 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 0.66 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 703 of village -Nimpur Belonging to the claimant -respondents was acquired for the purpose of Mahanadi -Birupa Barrage Project by notification published under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 07.05.1983. The land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/ - per acre for Gharbari and Rs. 80,000/ -for Biali kisam of land. The claimant -respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference -of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge. 1. To substantiate their claim of higher compensation, the claimant No. 1 examined himself and produced certified copy of the judgment in L.A. Case No. 21/87 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division, First Court, Cuttack. The State examined only one witness and did not produce any document. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned civil Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,50,000/ - per acre. He accordingly, directed payment of compensation with all statutory benefits. The said award is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) MR . Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is an imaginary one and is not based on no evidence. He specifically states that Ext. 1 is an award passed by the Civil Judge, which is not final and therefore, the rate of award noted in Ext. 1 should not have been followed.

(3.) THE evidence of P.W.1 that the acquired land is fit for homestead and is situated adjoining the High School, market and Railway Station was not seriously challenged or discredited. Therefore, learned referral Court committed no error in concluding that the said land is homestead and it had adequate potency. Ext. 1 is an award passed by learned Civil Judge. Since such award is subject to challenge in higher forum that cannot be accepted as standard or ratio for fixing the land of neighbouring land. However, this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector v. Smt. 2004 (Supp.) OLR (NOC) 995 Harapriya Kar 2005 (I) CLR 10 after analysing the evidence and the surrounding factors came to hold that land in that area had a market value of Rs. 2,00,000/per acre at the relevant point of time. The acquired land of the present claimant -respondents and the land of Harapriya Kar situate in the same area and were acquired for the same purpose. So, it would be just, proper and prudent to adopt the market rate of Rs. 2,00,000/ - per acre for the acquired land of the claimant -respondents.