L.A.A. No. 111 of 2003. Case: Zone Officer, L.A. (I), U.I.P., Kusumkhunti State of Orissa represented by Spl. L.A.O. Vs Haladhar Mali and Anr.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | L.A.A. No. 111 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sangram Das, Adv. and Addl. Standing Counsel and For Respondents: Dhananjaya Mund, Adv. |
| Judges | A.K. Parichha, J. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4(1), 11, 18 |
| Citation | 2007 (1) OLR 646 |
| Judgement Date | May 09, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Parichha, J.
-
This appeal is filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmagarh in M.J.C. No. 2 of 2000 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act (in short, 'the Act').
-
Ac. 0.43 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 920 (Atamamuli-Ac. 0.25 dec.) and Plot No. 930 (Ataunhari-Ac. 0.18 dec.) under Khata No. 36 of mouza Kebdi belonging to the Respondents were acquired by the State of Orissa for construction of Kebdi Minor and Br. Chhendia Sub-minor under Upper Indravati Irrigation Project vide notification No. 51492 dated 18.11.1995 and declaration No. 6315 dated 6.2.1997. The Zone Officer, Land Acquisition, U.I.P.. Kusumkhunti after conducting enquiry under Section 11 of the Act awarded compensation of Rs. 9014/ - for the said land. The claimant-Respondents received that amount under protest and requested for reference of the matter to the civil Court for determination of the proper market value of the acquired land. Consequently, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge in the above noted MJC.
-
To substantiate the claim of higher compensation, the Respondent-claimants examined three witnesses only and produced the certified copies of some sale deeds, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 5. The Land Acquisition Collector examined one witness and produced the attested true copies of working sheet and sale statistics as Exts. A and B respectively. On consideration of the evidence available on record and the surrounding circumstances, learned referred Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition and taking over possession was Rs. 3,000/ - per dec. He accordingly, directed payment of compensation along with statutory benefits provided under the L.A. Act to the claimants. Being unhappy with such order the State has preferred this present appeal.
-
Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant challenges the correctness and legality of the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i) The learned trial Court relied on sale deeds involved in small patches of land for determining the market value of larger patches of acquired land although the settled legal position is that transactions in respect of small patches of land do not offer proper guideline and basis for determining the market value of larger piece of acquired land.
(ii) The learned referral Court relied on sale deeds, which had...
To continue reading
Request your trial