STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BASUDEV KAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against an Order passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur as the arbitrator under the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Person (Land Acquisition) Act, 1946 (for short, 'the Act') in respect of 162.55 acres of Gounti rayati and rayati lands appertaining to Khunti No. 2 and 31/13 respectively and the tress standing thereon of village Joint in the district of Sambalpur which was acquired by the State of Orissa under a notification dated 26 -5 -1951. There is no dispute that the ancestors of the present Respondents were recorded as tenants in respect of the said khuntis. Being dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the Appellant, the matter was referred to the arbitrator. Before the arbitrator, the present Respondents 1 and 3 to 11 and the predecessors in interest of Respondent No. 2 raised various objection as regards the classification of lands, the valuation of the trees etc. and they claimed higher compensation. The present Appellant in its written statement asserted that while determining the compensation all relevant factors have been taken into account and the compensation offered was fair and reasonable.

(2.) THE arbitrator disposed of the case on 18 -3 -1974, but the same was set aside in P. A, No. 102/74 and the case was remitted back for fresh disposal In the order of remand this Court observed that as there is a confusion in the evidence of Basudev (present Respondent No. I), opportunity should be given to both parties to adduce further evidence as regards the net yields from the lands in question. It was further directed that the compensation for the Bhogra lands shall not be determined and the compensation for the lands of the two other khuntis (khunti Nos. 2 and 31/13) shall be worked out on the evidence already on record and to be further received from the parties. After the order of remand, the present Respondents examined Basudev further, but the present Appellant adduced no further evidence. The learned District Judge -cum -arbitrator in his award discussed the evidence on record and held that no contemporaneous sale deeds are available and the present Appellant has adduced no evidence to show that the yield of the acquired Gounti rayati and rayati lands would be less than the net yield as given in the report relating to the record of rights of Hamid Settlement. He, therefore, concluded that in the absence of any clear evidence showing the yield of the Gounti Rayati and Rayati lands the safer basis would be the net yield as given in the record of rights of the Hamid Settlement. He also relied on the decision reported in State of Orissa v. Bharat Chandra Nayak : A.I.R. 1955 Ori 97, for the aforesaid conclusion. As a matter of fact, both sides filed calculation sheets on the basis of net yield given in the record of rights of Hamid Settlement and the arbitrator determined the compensation on that basis. He found that certain trees standing on certain plots were not taken into account and therefore, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to re -assess the compensation in respect of the same. Statutory solatium and interest were also allowed by the District Judge -cum -arbitrator. In the present appeal the State of Orissa has challenged the basis of calculation of the compensation and has further urged that the arbitrator has gone beyond the directions given in the order of remand by this Court in determining the compensation. A cross -appeal has been filed on behalf of some of the Respondents alleging that the arbitrator has gone wrong in not giving proportionate cost to the Respondents.

(3.) THE next contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant was that the principle in regard to fixation of compensation laid down by this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Bharat Chndra Nayak : A.I.R. 1955 Ori 97. cannot be taken as universally accepted principle and the learned District Judge -cum -Arbitrator was, therefore, wrong in determining the compensation on such principle. The aforesaid, argument of the learned Counsel is not acceptable. In the previous appeal, namely, F. A. No. 102/74. this Court made a note of the fact that there was no dispute between the parties that the principle in regard to fixation of compensation laid down in the aforesaid case was applicable. As a matter of fact, both the parties filed calculation sheets before the Arbitrator on the basis of not yield given in the record of rights of Hamid Settlement. The learned District Judge -cum -Arbitrator has also noticed in the impugned award that the principle as laid down in the case of State of Orissa v. Bharat Chandra Nayak : A.I.R. 1955 Ori 97 was accepted by both the parties. In these circumstances the argument now advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be entertained. Thus, we find no merit in any of the contentions raised, by the Appellant, and the appeal is, therefore, bound to be dismissed.