The determination of fair market value of acquired land and the entitlement to compensation for severed land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 18.0and.2008 passed in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 293/2006 wherein the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak (for short 'Referral Court') determined the market value of the acquired Gharabari land belonging to Respondent No. 1- Soumya Ranjan Mohanty ' of Rs. 30 lakhs per acre and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dhamara Port Project, Bhadrak to reassess the compensation payable for the above land accordingly and pay the compensation amount to Respondent No. 1 along with other statutory benefits and the compensation awarded towards trees, hutment and pond after deducting the amount already paid to and received by him.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are that on 21.06.2005, the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued for acquisition of Ac.21.03 decimals of land which includes Ac.3.and2 decimals of land of Kissam Gharabari appertaining to Plot No. 126 under Khata No. 190/38 of Mouza Tisalpur belonging to Respondent No. 1 for construction of Railway corridor from Bhadrak to Dhamara in connection with expansion of Dhamara Port Project. Respondent No. 3-Land Acquisition Collector, Bhadrak determined the market value of the said land at the rate of Rs. 6 lakhs per acre. The amount of compensation was determined at. Rs. 33,88,595.and6 towards value of the land, house, pond, trees and other statutory benefits. Accordingly, the Appellant-Company deposited the said amount with Respondent No. 3 through IDCompany

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 1 submitted an application on 20.09.2006 u/s 18 of the Act. Respondent No. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted a memorandum along with the petition filed by Respondent No. 1 u/s 18 of the Act before the Referral Court, which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No. 293/2006 in the said Court. On 21.04.200and, the Appellant-Company filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to allow it to be impleaded as a party to the aforesaid L.A. Misc. Case No. 293/2006. The Referral Court vide its order dated 18.0and.2008 allowed the Appellant-Company to be impleaded as Opp. Party No. 3 in the said case. After hearing the parties, the Referral Court passed the impugned order enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 30 lakhs per acre and awarded compensation for Ac.0.84 decimals of severed plot. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Even though several grounds are taken, Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant-Company confined his argument on two grounds. The first limb of his argument is that the Referral Court has not assigned any justifiable reason for determining the actual market value of the acquired land at Rs. 30 lakhs per acre, which is contrary to the mandates of Sections 23 & 24 of the Act. The amount of compensation determined in respect of the land in question has serious implications on cost of the project unless the same is confined to specific category, i.e., Gharabari of the specific village, namely, Tisalpur. Therefore, it should be clarified that the price arrived at for the- acquired land shall apply only to land of the same category of the same village. It was vehemently argued that the Referral Court has relied on the value of small piece of land to determine the market value of large track of land acquired. The value of small piece of land cannot be the basis to determine the market value of large track of land.

Relying on the decision of the apex Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 454, he argued that when a large extent of land is acquired, the sale of small pieces of land though genuine cannot be relied upon as the basis to determine the compensation. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at fair market value of la