LAND AQUISITION OFFICER Vs. HANU MALLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been filed at the behest of the Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, challenging the order dated 17.10.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska, in Execution Petition No. 3 of 1989 arising out of M.J.C. No. 75 of 1987 mainly on the ground that (a) the interest so awarded by the trial Court while calculating the compensation to be paid by the State is not in accordance with law; (b) the order has been passed without following the procedure; and (c) interest under Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (in short 'the Act') is not payable on additional market value and solatium.

(2.) At this stage, it is profitable to state the background of the case which led to this revision application. The State Government acquired Ac. 3.512 of land belonging to the opposite party for the purpose of excavation of Raghunath Sagar Minor Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the relevant factors, fixed the market value of Dry-1 land at Rs. 2,000/- per acre and rain-red land at Rs. 4,000/- per acre. As the opp. party raised objection, same was referred to the learned Subordinate Judge. Aska, under Sec 18 of the Act for determination of compensation and the learned trial court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the learned Court also allowed compensation for mesne profit at the rate of 10% per annum from 1978 to 1988, i.e. for ten years, along with solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value. The aforesaid award of the learned trial Court was challenged by the State in First Appeal No. 120 of 1989 before this Court and while disposing of the appeal this Court confirmed the market value of the land as determined by the trial Court and also allowed interest @ 10% for the period from 24.4.1978 till the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act were issued towards non-enjoyment of the crops. It was further held that the claimant was also entitled to permissible statutory benefits under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 and directed the trial Court to calculate accordingly and to make an award under Section 26 of the Act. Thereafter the learned trial Court while calculating the compensation allowed interest @ 9% and determined compensation at Rs.62,324/- but the opposite party filed an application before the trial Court with a prayer to grant him interest @ 15% per annum under Section 28 of the Act which was rejected by the trial Court. Against this order a Civil Revision was preferred being C.R. No. 16 of 1997 before the District Judge. Ganjam, who declined to interfere with the said order. Against this order of the learned District Judge, a writ petition being OJC No. 3938 of 1998 was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court by order dated 21.4.1998 came to the following findings :

(3.) Learned counsel for the opp. party has raised the following objections : (i) This civil revision is not maintainable because there is no provision for filing a revision under the Act except against an order refusing reference. So, in other words, except an appeal under Sec. 54 of the Act, there being no scope to file a revision, the revision is liable to be dismissed; (ii) The attempt of the State is to upset a portion of the award passed in favour of the opp. party which amounts to introduce a new case which is not permissible; and (iii) The calculation so impugned in this revision has been done by the learned trial Court pursuant to the direction of this Court with regard to solatium.