Back
1975 Supreme(Ori) 77
High Court Of Orissa
G. K. Misra, C. J. And S. K. Ray, J.
CHINTAMANI SAHU - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR - Respondent
A. H. O. 27 Of 1975
Decided On : 09/02/1975
D.K.DAS
The market value of the acquired land is to be determined by taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the location of the land, its proximity to roads, availability of electricity and water, and its potentiality as a house site.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - RELEVANCY OF EARLIER AWARDS - EVIDENCE OF SALE DEEDS AND AWARDS - DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - INTEREST ON EXCESS COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Land was acquired for the public purpose of construction of a police building. The Collector awarded compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per acre, Rs. 97.50 towards the value of the tree standing on the acquired land, and solatium at the rate of 15% of the total amount of compensation determined. The appellant, who was dissatisfied with the award, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for determination of the amount of compensation. The Sub-Judge determined the compensation at Rs. 55,000/- for the land, Rs. 700/- for the tree, and 15% solatium on the aggregate amount of compensation. The learned single Judge reduced the compensation for the land to Rs. 49,387.50 and restored the Collector's valuation of the tree at Rs. 97.50.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the learned single Judge erred in reducing the compensation for the land from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 900/- per gunth solely on the basis of an earlier judgment (Ext. 1) in which the market value of similar land had been determined at Rs. 900/- per gunth. The Court found that the valuation in Ext. 1 was not binding on the appellant as he was not a party to that case. Moreover, the evidential basis of valuation in Ext. 1 was weaker than in the present case as factors like the existence of huts, electricity and water pipes, and nearness of road, which had a bearing on the potentiality of the land as a house site, had not been considered in that case. The Court also held that the learned single Judge erred in restoring the Collector's valuation of the tree as the Collector had not led any evidence to indicate the basis of his valuation.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned single Judge was justified in reducing the compensation for the land from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 900/- per gunth solely on the basis of an earlier judgment (Ext. 1) in which the market value of similar land had been determined at Rs. 900/- per gunth? 2. Whether the learned single Judge was justified in restoring the Collector's valuation of the tree?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the learned single Judge erred in reducing the compensation for the land from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 900/- per gunth solely on the basis of Ext. 1 as the valuation in Ext. 1 was not binding on the appellant and the evidential basis of valuation in Ext. 1 was weaker than in the present case. 2. The Court held that the learned single Judge erred in restoring the Collector's valuation of the tree as the Collector had not led any evidence to indicate the basis of his valuation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The decision of the learned single Judge was set aside and that of the Sub-Judge was restored. The appellant was entitled to his costs throughout.
RAY, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') which was registered as misc. Case No, 16 of 1968 in the court of the Sub-Judge. Cuttack and is directed against the reversing decision of the learned single Judge passed in first Appeal No. 160 of 1968 (Pat) reducing the amount of compensation determined by the Sub-Judge.
( 2 ) BY notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 22-5-1968. 16. 355 acres of lands in one block were acquired for the public purpose of construction of police building in mouza Tulasipur. Out of this 16 acres and odd 2. 185 acres appertaining to Plot No. 122 (0. 286) of khata No. 280 and Plot No. 224 (0. 156), plot No. 228 (1. 563) and Plot No. 228/1399 (0. 180) of 'khata No. 224 belonged to the appellant. The last Plot No, 228/1399 is a fractional plot having a total area of 0. 190 acre. Declaration under Section 9 (31 of the Act was served on the appellant who filed his claim on 12-9-1965. The Collector passed his award under Section 11 of the Act on 1-3-1967 and took possession on 15-9-1967.
( 3 ) THE Collector awarded compensation for the land at the rate of Rupees 7,500/- per acre. Rs. 97. 50 towards value of the tree standing on the acquired land as against higher claims, and solatium at the rate of 15 per cent, of the total amount of compensation determined for land and tree as aforesaid. Thus, in aggregate, the sum awarded was Rupees 18,957. 75 paise.
( 4 ) THE appellant did not accept this award and required the Collector to refer the matter to the Sub-Judge, Cut-tack under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the amount of compensation. Reference was accordingly made. The appellant adduced both oral and documentary evidence while the respondent led no evidence. The Sub-Judge determined the compensation as follows:--Compensation for lands actually acquired and for 0. 010 acre of land which had become useless on account of acquisition, in all for 2. 195 acres, at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per gunth which came to Rs. 54,875/- which was converted to a round figure of Rs. 55,000/ -. Compensation for mango tree was determined at Rs. 700/ -. He also granted 15% solatium on the aggregate amount of compensation of rs. 55,700/ -.
( 5 ) THE learned single Judge reduced the rate of compensation for land to Rs. 900/- per gunth as a result of which the amount of compensation for land came down to Rs. 49,387. 50. He also restored the valuation of the tree made by the collector at Rs. 97. 50. Thus the aggregate amount of compensation for the lands and the tree was reduced to Rupees 49,485/ -. Further, he granted interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the sum in excess awarded by the court over the amount awarded by the Collector from the date on which the collector deposited his award amount till the date of payment of such excess into court.
( 6 ) THE learned single Judge reduced the compensation determined by the Sub-Judge by a sum of Rs. 6,215/-holding that (a) in Ext. 1 the learned Sub-Judge fixed the valuation of land at Rs. 1,000/- per gunth but on appeal the High court reduced the value of land from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 900/- per gunth, (b)that Kisam of land in Ext. 1 and the present land being same i. e. , Sarad mere statement of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that claimant's lands are more fertile cannot raise the valuation from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1,000/-and that (c) it is only when mango tree is cut into fire-wood that it would sell at Rs. 3/- per maund as deposed to by P. W. 1 but as heavy amount is necessary to cut and split the mango tree into firewood, the Collector's valuation of the tree must be held to be meet and proper.
( 7 ) IN this appeal the appellant challenges the decision of the learned single judge on the ground that there was no legal justification for reducing the rate of compensation for the land from Rupees 1,000/- to Rs. 900/- per gunth and for restoring the Collector's valuation of
