LAND ACQUISITION ZONE OFFICER Vs. GOKULA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant calls in question the judgment dated 13.4.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No.86 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs.2,10,1000/ - along with other statutory benefits.

(2.) THE fact giving rise to the present Appeal lies in short compass. Land Acquisition Collector, Dhenkanal, pursuant to Government Declaration No.37475 dated 25.8.1995 published in EOG No.1026 dated 7.9.1995 acquired Ac.0.17 decs. of Sarad Jal Dofasali -II, Ac.0.29 decs. of Taila -I, Ac.0.38 decs. of Taila -I appertaining to plot Nos.139,193 and 198 respectively (total A.0.84 decs) under khata No.124 in village Ranigoda Jungle belonging to the Respondent, for construction of Talcher -Sambalpur Rail Link. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher -Sambalpur Rail Link awarded compensation of Rs.25,199/ -. The Respondent, being dissatisfied with the said award got the case referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the L.A. Act) to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul and accordingly L.A. Misc Case No.86 of 1997 was registered. According to the Respondent the land acquired had several locational advantages, but without taking the same into consideration the Land Acquisition Zone Officer awarded a very meager amount of compensation.

(3.) IT transpires from the evidence of witness No.1 that the land in question was being irrigated by Derjang Project Canal and he was harvesting 10 to 12 bags of paddy and 5 to 6 bags of ground -nut per gunth and as such was getting net income of Rs.30,000/ - to Rs.40,000/ - per year. Since no document was filed with regard to payment of water tax, learned Court below did not accept the evidence of witness No.1 that he was getting net income of Rs.30,000/ - to Rs.40,000/ - per annum from the acquired land. It transpires from the evidence of witness No.2 that the land in question is adjacent to his land. In the year 1993 a piece of land measuring Ac.0.33 decimals belonging to him was acquired, for which he received compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/ - per acre.He admitted that the said land was of Sarad Jal Dofasali -I variety. So, the trial Court held that the case land of the Respondent and the acquired land of witnesses No.1 cannot be said to be identical. Ext.1 reflects that Ganeswar Sahu was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/ - per acre in L.A. Misc. Case No.86 of 1996. During cross -examination witness No.1 (Respondent) deposed that the land of Ganesh Sahu and the case land appertain to one "chaka". So the trial Court awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/ - at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/ - per acre for the acquired land. Ext.1 shows that Sarad Jal Dofasali -I variety of land belonging to Ganesh Sahu was acquired, whereas the acquired land of the Respondent is of Sarad Jal Dofasali -II and Taila -I variety of land. There is no document to show that the land of Respondent and that of Ganesh Sahu appertain to one "Chaka". Under such circumstances the Court below ought not have awarded compensation in favour of Respondent at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/ - per acre. It is found from Ext.3, the certified copy of report of assessment of market value of land in village Ranigoda jungle that Sarad Jal Dofasali -I variety of land was valued at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/ - per acre. Sarad Jal Dofasali -II at Rs.2,40,000/ - and Taila -I variety of land at the rate of Rs.1,80,000/ - per acre. So the Respondent is entitled to get compensation as assessed in Ext.3, besides other statutory benefit and not more.