ABHIMANYU BEHERA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are in appeal against the award dated 18.09.2001 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in L.A. Misc. Case No. 780 of 1994. The fact matrix of the case in summary is as follows:

(2.) THE claimants examined one of them, namely, Prafaulla Kumar Behera, who proved the reference under Section 18 of the Act as Ext. 1, the copy of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as Ext. 2, certified copy of sale deed No. 678 dated 23.4.1993 as Ext. 3, the village map as Ext. 4. They also examined the vendor of Ext. 3 as P.W. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer examined his Amin as OPW.1 and proved the certified copies of five registered sale deeds as Exts. A to F, the working sheet for fixation of the market value as Ext. G, the application of claimant No. 1 dated 9.3.1994 as Ext. H, two village maps as Exts. J and K. On consideration of these evidence, the Referral Court by Order Dated 27.09.1996 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,00,000/ - per acre. The State preferred appeal against that award vide F.A. No. 43 of 1993. This Court by Judgment dated 20th June, 2001 allowed that first appeal and remanded to the matter to the Referral Court with observation that the reference should be re -decided reheard after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further corroborative evidence on the issue of market value of the land, if they so like. The Referral Court accordingly gave opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. The claimants examined P.W.1 who gave further statement, besides examining the scribe of the sale deed No. 1627 dated 19.2.1992, who proved the sale deed as Ext. 5. The Respondent re -examined Opposite Party No. 1, who stated that he relied upon his evidence adduced earlier. No further document was filed by the Respondents. The Referral Court re -assessed all the evidence and statements of the parties and came to conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Land Acquisition Authorities under Section 11 of the Act is just and proper. He accordingly, directed payment of compensation to the claimants for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2.50 lakhs per acre along with the statutory benefits. This award is now under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) MR . Sangram Das, Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hands supported the impugned award and stated that the land sold under Exts. 3 and 5 are of different nature and are situated in different villages than the acquired land for which reason the Referral Court rightly declined to adopt the rates noted in those sale deeds. He stated that there is no hard and fast rule that all lands acquired under same notification are to be compensated at the same rate because value of each land depends on its location, character and potency and for that reason the award passed in respect of other lands cannot be adopted for the acquired land of the claimants. In support of this contention, he relies on the case of Sakhi Gopal Regulated Market Committee v. Mahesh Ch. Hota and Ors. 92 (2001) CLT 662. Mr. Das, also stated that only in one case the State decided not to file appeal because the land acquired was very small in size and rate of compensation awarded for that land was justified. He denied the proposition that in many cases involving lands of same village the State Government has accepted the award of the Referral Court at the rate of Rs. Six lakhs per acre.