The potential value of the land and the application of a multiplier in the absence of contemporaneous documents showing the market value were central to the assessment of just compensation for the acquired land.

JUDGMENT :

B. Panigrahi, J. - The appeal filed by the State u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the "Act") challenges the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Nawapara, in M.J.C. No. 55 of 1992, directing the appellant to pay higher compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1 in respect of the acquired land.

2. Ac. 2.24 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 118, Khata No. 6 of Mouza Sirtol, P. S - Nawapara in the district of Kalahandi was acquired for the purpose of construction of Office building and Staff quarters for Kalahandi Irrigation Sub-Division, under Notification No. 16540 dated 24.3.1972 issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration was published on 28.12.1973. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation of Rs. 4,336.24 paise which was received by the claimant-respondent No. 1 under protest. On objection being filed, the matter was referred to the Subordinate Judge u/s 18 of the Act for determination of just compensation in respect of the acquired land. Before the referral Court, the objector examined four witnesses including himself and relied on two documents, namely Ext. 2, an unregistered agreement and Ext. 1, the protest petition filed before the Land Acquisition Officer. On behalf of the State one witness, namely the Revenue Inspector was examined. The referral Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, fixed compensation at Rs. 2,80,000/- and further allowed Solatium and interest as provided by the statute. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the referral Court, the present First Appeal has been filed.

3. It appears from the records that originally the Land Acquisition Officer assessed compensation in favour of claimant- respondent No. 1 and another Hara Prasad Sahoo, who is the brother of claimant No.l. However, the reference has been made on the basis of objection filed by claimant No. 1, Santosh Kumar Sahoo. During the pendency of the present appeal, the legal heirs, namely widow and children of said Hara Prasad Sahoo, filed application to be added as parties and by order dated 13.2.1997, this Court allowed the application and accordingly claimant- respondents 2 to 7 are added as parties. Therefore, the benefit of the acquisition shall enure to these respondents.

4. Mr. Pradipta Kr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has contended that the valuation fixed by the Court below has no basis and the agreement purported to have been executed by the claimant and another person was only a self-serving document to claim inflated amount of compensation. He has further contended that the land in question was barren land and therefore, there was no sale statistics available in the locality.- Thus, in the above context, the compensation fixed by the Court below was not legitimate and it was arbitrarily high and unreasonably excessive.

5. While examining the records, we find that no document worthwhile was submitted by the State to support the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Officer, who assessed the compensation by taking the land value at Rs. 1,669,92, per acre. We also find that the agreement relied upon by the claimant as well as by the Court below is an unregistered document and hence cannot be taken to be the basis for assessing just compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any contemporaneous document showing the market value, it is necessary to ascertain the potential value of the land. In this particular case, potential value has been fixed by the Collector at Rs. 1, 669,92 per acre, which appears to be on the lower side. Keeping in view the location, situation, the extent of the land, we think it proper to fix the potential value of the land at Rs. 3,400/- per acre. If that value is taken into consideration as the potential value, then applying 15 multiplier, which is usually permissible in a case where no other positive evidence is available for determining market value, as held in various decisi