Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, J.
MANU PUJHARI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Civil Revn. 239 Of 1963
Decided On : AUGUST 03, 1964
LAND ACQUISITION - VERMA SETTLEMENT REPORT - ADMISSIBILITY - NET ANNUAL YIELD - REVIEW - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATOR.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the acquisition of land by the State of Orissa for a public project. The objectors, who were the landowners, claimed compensation at 16 times the net annual yield of the land, based on the Verma Settlement Report. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at a much lower rate, and the arbitrator upheld the offer, finding that the objectors had failed to provide evidence of the net annual yield.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Verma Settlement Report was admissible in evidence and provided a sufficient basis for determining the net annual yield of the land. The court also held that the arbitrator had committed an error of law in concluding that the report was inadmissible and had no probative value.
Issues: 1. Whether the Verma Settlement Report was admissible in evidence to determine the net annual yield of the land? 2. Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to review his award? 3. Whether the arbitrator had committed an error apparent on the face of the record?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Verma Settlement Report was admissible in evidence because it was a public document and was relevant to the determination of the net annual yield of the land. The court also noted that the report had been prepared by the settlement authorities after conducting crop-cutting experiments and other investigations. 2. The court held that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to review his award because the error he had made was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that the arbitrator had misread the Verma Settlement Report and had failed to consider the evidence that it contained. 3. The court held that the arbitrator had committed an error apparent on the face of the record because his conclusion that the Verma Settlement Report was inadmissible was based on a misreading of the report.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision and set aside the arbitrator's order. The court directed the arbitrator to review his judgment and to determine the net annual yield of the land in the light of the Verma Settlement Report.
G. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) INITIALLY there were three objectors. Dibakar Pujhari a brother of other objectors, died during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The disputed lands constitute 13. 09 acres and are described as Brahmattar Mafi (Niskar) Sir lands in village Berhampura in Mahadebpalli, P. S. in the district of Sambalpur. The objectors claim Rs. 43,460/- as compensation on the basis of 16 times of the net annual yield. The Land Acquisition Officer offered only Rs. 8265/9/ -. On 30-4-1983 the arbitrator held that the objectors failed to give any evidence as to what was the net annual yield. He accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 8265/9/- as offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the body of the award, he, however, held that the disputed lands were transferable and objectors were entitled to compensation at 16 times of the net annual yield. He rejected the claim of the petitioners to get compensation at 16 times of the net annual yield on the basis of verma Settlement Report of 1932 on a finding that there was no crop cutting experiment performed in the Verma Settlement proceedings for determination of the net annual yield. His conclusion was based on the finding that there was no evidence on either side as to what was the net annual yield. The onus being on the petitioners, he awarded the compensation only to the extent admitted by the! land Acquisition Officer.
( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by this decision, the petitioners filed a review application on 8-51963 raising two contentions -- (i ). In similar cases arising out of Mahadebpalli P. S. , the Arbitrator himself directed the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the net yield and award compensation. The learned Arbitrator rejected this contention on the ground that the remand order in previous cases referred to areas governed by the Hamid Settlement in which there was crop cutting experiment; and (ii) Verma settlement Report was a piece of admissible evidence determining the net annual yield and the statement of the Arbitrator that there was no evidence on record is based on error of law apparent on the face of the record.
( 3 ) THE Arbitrator rejected the application for review on both the grounds. He held that his view of Verma Settlement Report was correct in law and that as there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record, he had no jurisdiction to review the award. Against this order passed on 3-8-63, the Civil Revision has been filed.
( 4 ) MR. R. K. Mohapatra raised two contentions saying that Verma Settlement report is not admissible in evidence for determination of net annual yield, merely because there was no crop cutting experiment. Even there the Arbitrator committed an error of record in saying that the Verma Settlement Report was based on no crop cutting experiment; and (ii) The Arbitrator illegally refused to exercise his jurisdiction in saying that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record and that he had no jurisdiction to review the award.
( 5 ) THE first contention must prevail. The position of law is well settled that Survey and Settlement Report is a public document and is admissible in evidence brajasunder Deb v. Rajendra Narayan, AIR 1941 Pat 260. In Martand Rao v. Malhar Rao, AIR 1928 P. C. 10, their Lordships observed that official reports regarding the nature of the estate are valuable and in many cases the best evidence of facts stated therein, but opinion therein expressed should not be treated as conclusive in respect of matters requiring judicial determination, however eminent the authors of such reports may be. In (S) AIR 1955 Orissa 97, state of Orissa v. Bharat Chandra Naik, a Bench of this Court held.- "to our mind, in the absence of any other evidence as to the annual yield of Bhogra lands, this settlement report which is an authorised one may be accepted as the safe guide. " doubtless that particular case was one governed by the Hamid Settlement Report. But it makes no difference in principle
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
