Orissa High Court
Sasmita Sahu vs L.A. Collector on 25 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
LAA No.40 of 2017
Sasmita Sahu ....... Appellant
-Versus-
L.A. Collector, Bhadrak &
ors. ....... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. B. Dash
Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. D.K. Behera
A.S.C.
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date of Judgment: 24.06.2024
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhadrak in L.A. Misc Case No. 118 of 2007- 1, vide which the Court below rejected the application of the Appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the case are that, an area of 1.68 decimals of land belonging to the Appellant was acquired by the Govt. for the purpose of construction of Railway corridor from Bhadrak to Dhamara vide notification no. 4500 dated 24.01.2000 of Revenue Department in terms of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
After taking into consideration all contemporaneous materials pertaining to the acquired land and its vicinity, compensation payable for the land was determined at Rs.3,16,354/- by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. Respondent no.1. The Appellant opposed such valuation as inadequate and claimed for enhanced compensation. Thereafter, in a reference under section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was registered as LA Misc Case No. 118 of 2007-1, the Referral Court, vide order dated 06.02.2017, without considering the potentiality of the acquired land dismissed the case holding that the present Appellant (Petitioner in the Court below) has failed to establish existence of any adequate ground for enhancement of compensation. Hence, this Appeal.
L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 2 of 21
3. This Appeal has been preferred basically on the ground that the court below has ignored the potentiality of the acquired land, which has been thoroughly established by evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellant (Petitioner in the Court below) so also the fact that the acquired land has been converted to homestead land. While passing the impugned judgment, the Court below acted erroneously and rejected the application for enhancement of compensation. Basing on the decision of the apex court in Ranvir Singh & another Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3467, it inferred that the sale deed pertaining to the portion of lands, which are the subject of acquisition, would be the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired land. But the Court below has misdirected itself by wrongly interpreting the said judgment of the Apex Court, wherein it was held that the market value of the acquired land is to be determined taking into consideration the materials on record so also other relevant factors necessary for such determination.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Court below has erroneously brushed aside the evidence L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 3 of 21 adduced by the P.W.1 who has clearly stated that out of a patch of 0.44 Acre of land comprising of Plot No. 1346 (0.40 Acre) and Plot No.1348 (0.04 Acre), an area of 0.21 Acre has been acquired by the Government leaving only 0.23 Acre of land and such a small left out portion of land has been rendered useless for the purpose for which it was kept to set up a factory.
5. Reiterating the grounds agitated in the memorandum of Appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Court below has committed error in brushing aside the evidence adduced by the P.W.1 stating that the acquired land is close to the busy market place, railway station, the village school and Co- operative Office and is under the Town Planning Area, hence has a great potential value as well as adjacent to other homestead lands of the locality separated by pucca road lying in between. Further, the acquired land is within a short distance from the Railway Station and that a public road connecting Bhadrak Railway Station to Rambhila Bazar runs adjacent to the acquired land.
L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 4 of 21
6. As regards to the valuation of the acquired land, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Ext.7 i.e. Sale Statistics of Mouza- Sushiladeipur, shows at Entry No.4 that 'Baje Fasal' land has been sold at Rs. 2 Lakh per Acre as on 14.02.2003 as well as Entry No.11 shows that the 'Sarad' land has been sold at Rs. 2 Lakh per Acre as on 26.08.2003. Further, Ext.-4 i.e. a registered sale deed dated 01.02.2001, in respect of land of the adjacent Mouza-Tishalpur shows that land has been sold at Rs. 3 Lakhs per Decimal.
He further submitted that the Court below has ignored the sale deed produced by the Appellant (Petitioner in the Court below) solely on the ground that such land belongs to Tishalpur Mouza and not to Sushiladeipur Mouza without considering the fact that the Railway line runs adjacent to the East of the acquired land and Tishalpur-Mouza is on the other side of the Railway track and both the Mouza- Sushiladeipur and Tishalpur are adjacent to each other enjoying similar facilities and advantages and having similar potentialities for the purpose of determination of compensation.
L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 5 of 21
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that in determination of market value of the acquired land, instances of contemporaneous sale statistics relating to the portions of the same or neighbouring lands form the best evidence and in case such sale statistics show variant rates, the higher rate available should be adopted. However, in the present case, as the Court below has failed to consider the sale transaction as under Ext.1 and Ext.4 so also the sale statistics as under Ext. 7 while rejecting the application for enhancement of compensation filed by the Appellant (Petitioner in the court below), the impugned judgment passed by the Court below in L.A Misc Case No. 118 of 2007-1 is illegal and liable to be set aside.
8. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, A.P Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao and Ors, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1142 in which it was observed that, sale relating to similar land in the vicinity is to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation of the acquired land.
L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 6 of 21
9. In response to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel for the State-Respondent submitted that the acquired land is the purchased land of the Appellant, but the sale deed of the same has been concealed by the Appellant as it would indicate the actual market value of the acquired land. It is the stand of the State-Respondent that the acquired land being consolidated, has less marketability due to bar under consolidation law. Thus, the acquired land does not have any potential value. Learned State Counsel further submitted that there is no road connection to the acquired land, hence, it cannot be converted into homestead land and most of the time it remains water logged.
10. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, on perusal of the LCR, it is ascertained that P.W.1 in his examination in chief has stated that the acquired land is close to busy market place, railway station, nearer to village-school and Co-operative Office. It has a great potential value. Homestead lands are just on the opposite side and connecting the pucca road lying at a small distance from the acquired land. In order to convert the said L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 7 of 21 land to homestead, the Petitioner had converted plot no.1335/2316 Acre 0.48 and plot no.1339/2317 Acre 0.52. By the acquisition, the said lands become useless as no purpose would be now served by keeping the road when the proposed homestead site had been acquired. It has also stated by the P.W.1 that the land in question is under the Town Planning Area and has a great potential value. But the Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into consideration the said facts.
11. P.W. 1 further stated in his Affidavit evidence that plot no.1346 measures an area of Acre 0.40 from which an area of Acre 0.17 has been acquired. Adjacent to the said plot, there is plot no.1348 measuring an Acre of 0.04 and the same has been acquired. By such acquisition, an area of Acre 0.21 has been acquired from the said patch making the un- acquired area of Acre 0.23 decimal useless and the same cannot be used for any other purpose.
12. It was also stated by the P.W. 1 that the Petitioner also owns other landed properties lying adjacent to the acquired land. Altogether, the Petitioner owned and possessed Acre 9.29 of land at that patch, out of which an area of Acre L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 8 of 21 5.82 has been acquired and out of the rest Acre 3.47 of the land, road has been constructed over an area of an Acre 1.00 over plot nos.1335/2316 and 1339/2317. The said land has been developed to a road, as the Petitioner has the intention to set up an industry/factory there. By the acquisition, the same is not possible and the land in question has become completely useless.
13. P.W.1 has also stated that after acquisition of the land for railway corridor, the railway line has already been laid and with the plying of the trains, the flora and fauna of the area has been affected, which has a direct effect on the productivity also. Accordingly, P.W.1 stated that the actual compensation payable should be Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) and the Petitioner is entitled to be awarded with such amount.
14. During his cross-examination most of the evidences of P.W.1, what has been stated in the examination in chief, remained untouched. Rather, during his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that by the time of acquisition, the value of the suit land was 10,00,000/-. Now the market value of 1 decimal of land over the suit area is more than Rs.1,00,000/- L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 9 of 21
15. Though in his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the suit land is an irrigated land by canal irrigation and the said area is a consolidated area, but he has stated that Gadi Chhak is around 50 mtrs away from his house and Bhadrak is around 30 k.m. away from Gadi Chhak. P.W.1 has stated in his cross-examination that they have constructed a road towards western portion of the suit land and now they have set up a brick kiln over it and the road is used for transportation and rest of the land is now under one enclosure.
16. P.W.2 has stated in his Affidavit evidence that around 5 to 6 acre land was acquired by the Railways out of an area of more than 9 Acres. In the said area, there was also a road laid by the Petitioner measuring an area of one Acre. P.W.2 also stated that the disputed land is within a distance of 1 k.m. from Bhadrak Railway station and a public road runs adjacent to the land of the Petitioner, which connects the Bhadrak Railway Station to Rambhila Bazar, which is also within a distance of 1k.m from the disputed land. The Railway line runs on the adjacent east of the disputed land and to the other side of the Railway line is mouza Tishalpur. L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 10 of 21
17. P.W. No.2 also stated that 10 years ago the rate of one decimal land near the disputed land was Rs.15,000/- to 16,000/-, but his examination in chief remained untouched /undemolished during his cross-examination.
18. As is revealed from the LCR, since no Registered Sale Deed (RSD) of mouza Susiladeipur was available to make comparison to substantiate the claim for higher compensation in favour of the Appellant, he wanted to rely upon the RSDs of the adjacent mouza namely, Tishalpur and exhibited certain RSDs, which were marked as Exhibits 1 and 4.
19. As is further revealed from the LCR, the Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below), after obtaining copies of documents under the RTI Act, 2005, filed an application before the referral Court for admitting the said documents in evidence. The Court below allowed the said petition and marked the letter of the Public Information Officer dated 24.03.2014, order sheet of the proceeding before the L.A.O. dated 17.09.2005 and sale statistics of village Sushiladeipur as Exhibits 5 to 7 respectively with an observation that the Court is of the view that the said documents are essential for effectual adjudication of the said Misc. Case. It is further L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 11 of 21 revealed from the LCR that, being directed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2016 in CMP No.1824 of 2016, the Registered Sale Deed bearing No.3623 dated 26.08.2003 was marked as Exhibit 8 in L.A. Case No.118 of 2007.
20. As is revealed from Exhibit 7, which is the sale statistics of mouza Susiladeipur, entry no.4 indicates "Baje Fasal II" land has been sold at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as on 14.02.2003. Similarly, entry no.11 in Exhibit 7 shows that "Sarada Jala II" land was sold @ Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre as on 26.08.2003. It is further revealed from the LCR, the RSD dated 26.08.2003, which was marked as Exhibit-8, shows that the land in mouza Susiladeipur, which is a Chaka land, was sold @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Acre. But the Court below has not taken into consideration such sale deed while passing the impugned order.
21. As is revealed from the LCR, vide Exhibit 6, it was proved that the L.A.O. in the Land Acquisition Case, vide the said order, so far as sale statistics of chaka land in village Susiladeipur, held that the land under the classification of chaka has been sold within the sale range from Rs.65,000/- to 40,80,000/- per acre, but did not take into consideration L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 12 of 21 the sale transaction vide RSD no.2598 dated 20.07.2004 pertaining to Plot No.1907 measuring an area of Ac.0.02 decimal on the plea that the transaction of the said particular plot of the village concerned appears to be interested and exceptional and the said plot cannot be taken into consideration for assessment of market value of the land of said village-Susiladeipur. However, the last transaction, which was executed vide RSD No.2790 dated 13.06.2005 in respect of Plot No.2299 for an area of Ac.0.51 decimals for consideration amount of Rs.53,550/-, which comes to Rs.1,05,000/- per acre, was taken into consideration for awarding the compensation in favour of the present Appellant.
Though Ext.8 i.e. the certified copy of the RSD No.3623 dated 26.08.2003, which was pertaining Sl. No.11 of the sale statistics of village Susiladeipur marked as Exhibit.7, is a chaka land, neither the referral Court took into consideration Exhibit.7 i.e. sale statistics of village Susiladeipur nor the said RSD dated 26.08.2003 marked as Exhibit.8, while rejecting the claim of the Appellant for further enhancement of the compensation amount.
L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 13 of 21
22. Further, as detailed above, in view of the unimpeached evidence of P.W.2 that the Railway track runs adjacent to the east of the acquired land and mouza Tishalpur is immediately on the other side of the Railway track, the Court below failed to appreciate the immediate proximity of the acquired land to the land of mouza Tishalpur and take into consideration the transaction under Exhibits 1 and 4, concerning the land of mouza Tishalpur, to evaluate the compensation against the Petitioner's acquired land at mouza Susiladeipur.
23. In Ranvir Singh and another vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 3467 : (2005) 12 SCC 59, the apex Court vide para 38 held as follows:-
"38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court for of the matter afresh. The High Court shall proceed to determine the market value of the acquired land upon taking into consideration the materials on record and all other relevant factors necessary for determining the market value of the lands in question."
(Emphasis supplied) L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 14 of 21 In Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao and Ors. reported in (2007) 3 SCC 526, the apex Court vide para 20 held as follows:-
"14. The Land Acquisition Officer in his order has recorded that rain-fed crops such as horse gram, bobbara, column were grown by the claimants-respondents in the acquired land No. F. 1384 to 1388 and in F. 1388, cashew nut plants were raised in some parts of the land to the extent of about Ac. 9.00 cents. Therefore, the finding of the Reference Court that there were no cashew nut trees found on the acquired land is factually Incorrect and cannot be sustained. It has come in the evidence of the claimants- respondents led before the Reference Court that they had raised maize crop at one time, which would have fetched Rs. 4000 to Rs. 5000 per acre to them and other crops jowar and bobbara in the next season. The computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 20 adopted by the Reference Court in the cases on hand is on the higher side and contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as laid down by this Court. However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondents is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted."
(Emphasis supplied) L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 15 of 21 In V. Subrahmanya Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer reported in (2004) 10 SCC 640, the apex Court vide para 6 held as follows:-
"6. There is no doubt that what has to be paid is the market value of the land. As has been held by this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao the best evidence of market value would be the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property came to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out, these are the relevant factors. If those are not available then the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have to be taken into consideration. xxxxx".
(Emphasis supplied) In Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2009) 14 SCC 367, the apex Court vide para 11 held as follows:-
"11. One of the preferred and well-accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 16 of 21 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise."
(Emphasis supplied) In Vithal Rao and anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2017) 8 SCC 558, the apex Court vide para 28 held as follows:-
"28. In addition to these principles, this Court in several cases has also laid down that while determining the true market value of the acquired land and especially when the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped land, it is just and reasonable to make appropriate deduction towards expenses for development of acquired land. It has also been consistently held that at what percentage the deduction should be made varies from 10% to 86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. It has also been held that while determining the market value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller piece of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in the value of lands and when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. This Court has also laid down that the Court should also take into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land apart from other relevant considerations. This Court has also recognised that the courts can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance the equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. In view of the judgments of the apex Court, detailed above, L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 17 of 21
(i) market value of the acquired land has to be determined taking into consideration the material on record and all other relevant factors necessary for determining the market value of land in question.
(ii) the computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis applying the appropriate multiplier
(iii) the Court, while determining the compensation, has to take into consideration the other circumstances such as the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and award just compensation to the claimant, who is deprived of his land and other property,
(iv) the relevant factors for determination of compensation are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, the time at which the property came to be sold, the purpose for which it is sold, nature of consideration and manner in which the transaction came to be brought.
25. Law is well settled that where one of the preferred and well accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 18 of 21 comparable sales method i.e. lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. In absence of sale deeds, the judgments and award passed in respect of the acquisition of land made in the same village and area / neighbouring village can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustment with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in sections 23 and 24 of the Act and if it required, the Court has to determine the compensation amount on guesswork basis. The apex Court has recognized that the Court can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance the equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters under section 23 of the Act.
26. From the admitted evidences on record, so also settled position of law, as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the Court below erred in law while passing the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2017 in L.A. Misc. Case No 118/2007-1, thereby rejecting to enhance the compensation on the ground that the present Appellant has not been able to establish the fact that the acquired land carries similar L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 19 of 21 potentiality and advantages as of the land acquired in Exhibits 1 and 4 and P.W.1, vide Paragraph 2 of his cross examination, admitted that the settled land is an agriculture land and is a consolidated area.
27. This Court is of the further view that while observing so to deny the prayer made by the Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below), for further enhancement of the compensation, the referral Court failed to take note of the admitted evidence on record as to the locational advantage of the plot acquired by the State so also its potentiality and possibility of use of the said land for homestead purpose, as was proved before the Court below.
28. Further, this Court is of the view that the Court below also failed to take note of Exhibit 7 i.e. Sale Statistics of village Susiladeipur, P.S./Tahasil/District-Bhadrak, which well proves that the kisam of land being "Baje Fasal II" at serial no 4 was sold at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre on 14.02.2003. Similarly, it has also failed to take note of the fact that "Sarada Jala II" kisam of land of the said village as Serial No.11 was sold at the same rate i.e. @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre on 26.08.2003. Hence, the impugned judgment being L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 20 of 21 perverse, deserves interference. Accordingly the same is set aside and quashed.
29. As this Appeal is pending since 2017, instead of remanding the matter back to the Court below, in view of the admitted evidence on record as discussed above so also settled position of law, the Respondents are directed to pay compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre to the Appellant for the acquired land, instead of Rs.1,05,000/- per Acre and calculate the differential enhanced compensation as directed above and pay the said differential amount along with statutory benefits and interest in terms of various provisions of the Act, 1984 within a period of 8 weeks hence.
30. With the said observation and direction, the Appeal stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Signature Not Verified Dated, the 24th June, 2024 / Banita Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2024 11:08:40 L.A.A. No.40 of 2017 Page 21 of 21