LAND ACQUISITION ZONE OFFICER Vs. RAMESH BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant calls in question the judgment dated 1.9.1998 delivered by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No.77 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ - for Ac.0.20 decs. of land, besides granting statutory benefits in favour of the Respondent.

(2.) THE fact -giving rise to the present Appeal lies in short compass. Land Acquisition Collector, Dhenkanal, pursuant to Government Notification No.37769 dated 26.8.1995 published in EOG No.1026 dated 7.9.1995 acquired Ac.0.20 decs. of Sarad Jal Dofasali -I category of land appertaining to plot No.876/2453, khata No.542/139 in mouza Ranigoda Jungle, belonging to the Respondent for construction of Diesel Locoshed of Talcher -Sambalpur Rail link. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer ordered to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.26,000/ - per acre. The Respondent being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation 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.77 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. According to him the value of the land was much more than the compensation awarded.

(3.) IT transpires from the evidence of witness No.1, father -in -law of the Respondent that he had sold the land acquired, to the Respondent for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ - at the rate of Rs.25,000/ - per Gunth. During cross -examination he stated that he sold the same through a hand -note and received the consideration money in the office of the Sub Registrar. Since the transaction was said to be made through a hand -note, when witness No.1 deposed that he received the consideration money in the office of the Sub Registrar, the trial Court disbelieved the sale transaction. It further transpires from the evidence of witness No.1 that the land acquired was suitable for homestead. During cross -examination it was elicited from him that 20 to 30 acres of cultivable land were there around the land, acquired. In view of this and in absence of any document showing that the land in question was suitable for homestead as deposed to by witness No.1, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) held that the Respondent failed to prove that it was suitable for homestead. It transpires from the evidence of witness Nos.1 and 2 that road, tank, electric light, houses and water facility are available near the acquired land and that two paddy crops and one black gram crop were being raised there each year and as such the Respondent was getting net profit of Rs.5,000/ - to Rs.7,000/ - per Gunth. Taking into consideration the category of land, the yield capacity of it and the locational advantage, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/ - at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/ - per acre along with solatium at the rate of 30%, additional compensation at the rate of 12% and interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum for one year with effect from the date of delivery of possession and 15% per annum for the rest period till realization.