NARAYAN DASH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 46 of 1975. The subject matter of acquisition in this case is Ac 29.10 decimals classified as old fellow land appertaining to plot No. 726 in Khata No. 9 to 8 of mouza Gadkan which was acquired for Sainik School in a notification under section 4(1) of the Act dated 6 12.1963. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 14.7. 1964 and the same was published in the Orissa Gazette on 22.7.1964 Possession appear to have been taken by the Government on 24.6.1965. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs 1,600.00 per acre and the appellant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid rate made an application under section 18 of the Act for reference to the Court. He claimed compensation (g) Rs. 1,25,000.00 per acre. The Subordinate Judge after giving the appellant and the respondents opportunity to lead evidence fixed the compensation @ Rs. 6,000.00 per acre which is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant had examined 3 witnesses of whom P.W. 1 is the son and the power of artorney holder of the appellant' He stated that there is a stone quarry on an area of 4 to 5 acres out of the acquired lands and the stone available in the said quarry would fetch a price of about Rs. 4,50,000.00 . According to him the remaining 24 to 25 acres of lands are plain lands situate at a little distance from Maocheswar Railway Station. Vani Vihar, O.C-C. Capital Water Works. National High Way and Engineeiing Research Institute. By referring to another award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Land Acquisition Case No. 159 of 1976 marked in the case as Ext. 1. he stated that the compensation fixed for the lands in the said case is Rs. 43,000.00 per acre which situates very close to the acquired lands in this case. He also relied upon another award passed by the Subordinate Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 178 of 1974 (Ext 2) where the compensation for the lands acquired in that case was fixed at Rs, 43,000.00 per acre and stated that the acquired lands in that case are superior in quality than the land covered under Exts. 1 and 2 inasmuch as there exists a stone quarry in the acquired lands in this case. P.W. 2 was examined to say that the acquired lands are at a distance of about 300 to 400 cubits from the Mancheswar Railway Station and that the petitioner has been quarrying stones from about 5 to 6 gunths of the acquired lands before acquisition. He also stated that the acquired land are more valuable than the lands dealt with in Annexures 1 & 2. P.W. 3 stated to be a party to the award, Ext. 1 and his evidence was that the acquired lands could fetch Rs. 4,000.00 to Rs. 5,000/ per gunth in the year 1964. Besides the award passed by the Subordinate Judge In Land Acquisition Case Nos. 159 of 1976 and 178 of 1974 marked as Exts. 1 and 2 respectively, another award of the Subordinate Judge in Land Acquisition case No. 230 of 1965 marked a Ext. 3 and a certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 2.1.1959 marked Ext. 4 were relied upon by the appellant. In Ext. 3 the subject matter of acquisition was Ac. 4.21 decimals of land in village Gadkan which was acquired for development and remodelling of Macheswar Railway Station yard. In Ext. 3 the compensation of the land including the building standing thereon was assessed at Rs. 5,000.00 per gunth. Under Ext. 4 a land measuring Act O. 01.1 was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/ by one Gopinath Sahu in favour of one Loknath Sabu Since the land conveyed under Ext. 4 situates in mouza Gadkan, the appellant relied upon the same It has been urged that since the transaction in Ext. 4 took place in the year 1959, much prior to the acquisition in quest ion in this case, that must be taken to be the correct basis for determination of the valuation of the acquired lands. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector. Cuttack one witness was examined. who was the Revenue. inspector attached to the Civil and Acquisition, Cuttack in the year 1964. He stated that he bad visited the spot and had found that the acquired lands were uncultivable, fallow and lying waste and stoney. He further stated that the acquired lands are of a similar nature like the lands of one Janjali Dei which were also acquired for Sainik School and a compensation @ Rs. 6,000.00 per acre was awarded in her favour in an award passed by the Subordinate Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 19/marked as Ext. B in the case. A sale deed dated 2. 2.1963 (Ext. A) was also relied upon h the Land Acquisition Collector Under Ext. 'A' an area of 24 decimals and 4 Kadies of land situated in mouza Gidkan was sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,000.00 on 2 2.1963 The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that there is a stone quarry in the acquired lands. He refused to take into consideration the sale deeds Exts. 4 and A as neither the vendor nor the vendee of those documents were examined to say as to whether any consideration was passed thereunder. He held that ti e lands mentioned in Exts. 1, 2 & 3 are not of the same category and situation as that of the lands under consideration in this case. His finding was that the lands detailed with in the award Ext. IV and the acquired lands in this case are adjacent to each other, and similar in nature having some potentiality and both were acquired under the same notification for the very same purpose. He accepted the valuation of the lands in Ext. B to be the correct guideline for fixing the compensation of the acquired lands in this case, and accordingly determined the compensation of the acquired lands (3) Rs. 6,000.00 per acre.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for die appellant has strenuously urged that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed serious error of law by ignoring Ext. 4 from consideration. According to him. Ext. A was the certified copy of a sale deed which was marked as an Exhibit without objection and therefore, the contents thereof stand admitted in evidence irrespective of the examination of the vendor and the vendee thereof. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court ( P.C. Purusothama Reddtar Vs. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608 and two decisions of this Court [ Land Acquisition Officer, D.I.S. Cuttack Vs. Madan Gajendra and others, 1975(41) CLT 869 and ( Budhi Mahal and others Vs. Gangadhar Das and others, 1978(46) CLT 287 in which the view of the Supreme Court has been interpreted and followed. He has argued that if the valuation given in Ext. 4 is acceptable, the compensation must be fixed at a rate claimed by the appellant in this proceeding. In the above noted case of the Supreme Court the admissibility of certain police reports were in question. It was contended that the police reports were inadmissible in evidence as the Head Constable who has submitted those reports had not been examined in that case. Those reports were found to be marked as exhibits without any objection and therefore, their Lordships held that it was not open to the respondent of that ease to object to their admissibility at that stage. It was next urged before their Lordships that even though the reports in question were admissible, the contents thereof would not be looked into as according to the learned arguing counsel the contents had not been proved. In that context their Lordships aspersed that once a document is properly admitted, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be the conclusive evidence. In a decision reported in Vol. 41 (1975) C.L.T.-869 (supra) which arose out of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, three sale deeds were exhibited without objection at the instance of the owners of the acquired Lands in proof of compensation claimed. An objection was taken in appeal that the Subordinate Judge has placed reliance on those sale deeds, the contents whereof were not proved in Court. Justice S.K Ray, (as he then was) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I-R 1972 S.C. 08 (Supra) held that since the aforesaid sale deeds were admitted in evidence without objection, contents thereof must be taken to have been admitted in evidence and the Subordinate Judge was, therefore, justified in relying upon the contents of those documents. In the other decision of this Court referred to above i.e. Vol. 6 1973 C.L.T. page-287 (supra) the same Honble Judge held that since the documents in question have been admitted without objection it is not possible to discard the contents thereof on the ground that they have not been admitted at all. It was further held in that case that the position of law is clear that a document can be treated as duly admitted where its admission without being proved is not objected to by the party affected. Mode of proof being a question of procedure, may be waived and if this is done, there can be subsequent objection. Objection to relevancy may, however, be raised even though evidence was admitted in the trial court without tender. The Honble Judge, therefore, concluded that when a document is admitted without objection, it would follow that the entire contents of the document are admitted.