STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KHETRA MOHAN PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State of Orissa challenging the judgment and orders in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 421/94 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar dated 28.9.1996. In the impugned order, learned Court below awarded compensation @ Rupees two lakhs Per acre for the lands of the respondent acquired by the Government.

(2.) Undisputed fact in the case is that vide Notification dated 8.3.1998 published in the Orissa Gazette,under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') and subsequent Notifications under different provisions of the said Act, the State Government/ appellants acquired Ac. O. 198 decimals of land of the respondent situated in Mauza Nayapalli vide Khata No. 62 and Plot No. 137. The said land was acquired for development of New-Capital and expansion of Bidyut Marg No 1. The State Government assessed the rate of compensation at the rate of rupees one lakh per acre along with other admissible benefits under the Act. Respondent challenged the market rate fixed by the Government and claimed it at the rate of rupees five lakhs per acre. Hence reference was made to the Court of Civil judge (Senior Division) in accordance with provision under Sec. 18 of the Act.

(3.) To substantiate his case, respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 besides two witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and relied upon the document wide Exts, 1 to 5, out of which Exts, 2,3 and 4 are the documents relating to the valuation of the lands. Appellant examined one witness who is an Amin and relied upon Exts. A to D, i. e., four sale deeds relating to that area regarding the market price. On assessment of the evidence, learned Civil Judge found that the documents tendered in evidence from the side of the State are not acceptable because the vendors and vendees were not examined relating to the details of the transactions including the price paid and in that respect.the evidence of O.P.W.1 was quite deficient to make any evidentiary value regarding the marked rate of the lands sold and accordingly, he did not accept the market price in Exts. A to D. Reffering to the evidence of the P.Ws. and the Exts. 2 and 3, the two sale deeds tendered from the side of the respondent, learned Civil Judge, accepted the same and fixed the value of the lands at the rate of rupees two lakhs per acre. In that connection, learned Civil Judge, also did not accept Ext.4 which was an order relating to fixation of mar- ket price of another patch of land acquired by the Government at Ekamra Kanan for the reason that such land was acquired in 1984 i.e., two years after acquisition of the case land.