LUDRA MEHER Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NUAPADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, being aggrieved by the judgment/award dated 15.9.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada in L.A.R. No.78/2014 with request for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that Government of Orissa acquired land of the petitioner for construction of medical and infrastructure development under Health & Family Welfare Department as per Notification No.19949/RDM dtd.10.5.2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 followed with declaration dated 1.11.2011 published in extraordinary Gazette No.2431 dated 3.11.2011. The acquired land involved Khata No.691 consists of only one plot vide Plot No.79 kisam Gharabari Dui measuring an area of Ac.1.34 decimals under Mouza-Sinapali situated in the district of Nuapada. The petitioner filed protest petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act after the Compensation of Rs.90,02,807/- was received under protest. Consequently, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by the competent authority. Case of the petitioner as borne from the record in the court below was that there is no proper assessment on the value of the land property and the amount awarded was reasonably inadequate. It is alleged that the Land Acquisition Officer failed in taking into consideration the market value during the relevant period of Notification for fixing the compensation. It is also alleged that higher sale transaction available was also not taken into account. It was further contended that the market value of the case land was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- per decimal. It is also contended that the land is situated in prime location area of Sinapali Town and having potential value being situated in the heart of the market of the Town surrounded by the main market towards East, house of Abdul Razak Bahi towards the South, approaching road to the West, Sinapali Block Office, ICDS and Electric Office to the North. Taking plea of registered sale deed dated 1.3.2013, the appellant claimed the compensation amount per decimal remained Rs.1,70,000/- involving the agreement undertaken prior to acquisition of land. It is also contended that even though the case land is Gharabari Dui having residential house and compound wall around the entire plot constructed by the grandfather of the appellant but this fact has been failed to be understood by the Land Acquisition Officer. As a consequence, there is no payment of compensation on the head of existing structures. It is also alleged that the authorities have not taken the actual price in the locality concerning the disputed land. There was no proper survey and enquiry involving the property involved. In the circumstance, the appellant claimed Rs.2.00 crores as compensation

(3.) Assailing the judgment on the ground of grant of lower compensation, the appellant contested the judgment on the premises that the impugned judgment/award has been passed without application of judicial mind, the judgment also remained erroneous and against the materials available on record. The judgment is also assailed on the premises of being passed without giving any cogent reason in assessment of market value. It is also contended that the land was acquired along a building constructed by his grandfather for the purpose of spinning industry comprising 7000 sqft., which is being enjoyed by the Government as medical building from the year 1961 and has been demolished in the year 2008 considering it to be an old structure and there is no payment of consideration on this head. The appellant also contended that there has been no proper consideration on the aspect of nature, situation, advantage and potentiality of the land while assessing the market value. It is also alleged that there has been grant of compensation less than the market value and there is also non- consideration of the registered sale deed dated 1.3.2013 by the court below. Further there has been no proper consideration of the working sheet filed as Ext.A referring to solitary transaction taken place, vide registered sale deed dated 15.4.2011. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri Asok Mohanty advancing his argument involving the appeal confined his submission involving the impugned judgment on non-consideration of the compensation involving the house standing over the disputed area at the time of demolition as well as acquisition. In substantiating his submission, Sri Asok Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the appellant taking this Court to the materials available from the pleadings involving the claim application, the document, vide Ext.3 as well as Ext.5 submitted that there cannot be any denial on the existence of a building at the time of demolition on the acquisition of the disputed land. It is in this view of the matter, Sri Mohanty contended that the appellant was bound to be entitled to compensation on the head of the building and compound wall existed thereon. Further taking this Court to the Record of Rights, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that for the status of the land to be Gharabari Dui and for the evidence of the sole witness on behalf of the respondent herein and further for the materials available through the evidence of other witnesses, there is reason in refusing grant of compensation on the premises of the existing building. For the appellant confining his submission on the compensation on the head of existing building, this Court proceeds accordingly.