The court considered locational advantages and potentiality of the acquired land, as well as a previous case involving the same project, in determining the market value of the land.

JUDGMENT :

R. Dash, J. - This appeal by the State through the Zone Officer, L.A.(I), U.I.P., Kusumkhunti is against the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharamgarh in M.J.C. No. 3 of 2001 answering a reference made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). Land measuring Ac. 3.75 decimals of Atamamuli kisam appertaining to Plot Nos. 20, 41/919 and 36 under Khata No. 33/41 in Mouza Ghumerguda belonging to the respondent was acquired for the purpose of Escape channel of U.I. Project vide Notification No. 11025 dated 11.3.1993 u/s 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector after conducting enquiry and basing on sale statistics obtained during the enquiry awarded compensation @ Rs. 5,284/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the respondent requested for a reference u/s 18 of the Act. On receipt of the reference, the learned lower court recorded evidence and considering the materials placed before him passed the impugned award fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre.

2. In assailing the impugned award, it is contended by the appellant herein that there was neither sufficient reason nor compelling circumstances for the referral court to differ with the market value made by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is specifically contended that while reassessing the market value, the learned referral court should not have taken the sale transaction of a small patch of land as the basis for determining the market value.

3. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that the referral court before determination of the market value has made an appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses examined by both the parties and the documents exhibited by them. The referral court has taken into consideration the locational advantages of the acquired land such as, existence of road on either side of the acquired land, together with the fact that the potentiality of the land situated in the village in question was then increasing day by day. No doubt, he has relied on one contemporaneous sale transaction in respect of Ac. 0.05 dec. of land @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre, but considering the aforestated locational advantage and the gradual increase in the potentiality of the land, he awarded compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre.

That apart, it is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that in LAA No. 65 of 2007 the market value determined by the referral court @ Rs. 1,300/- per decimal was upheld by this Court and the land which is the subject matter of that LAA was acquired for the same U.I. Project, a couple of years subsequent to the acquisition of the land of the present respondent. Taking that fact into consideration, this Court does not find that the valuation of the acquired land was over estimated by the learned referral court.

In view of the discussion made above, I find no impropriety in the impugned award. Since there is no merit in the appeal, the impugned award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest but in the facts and circumstances without cost.

Final Result : Dismissed