The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for similar treatment for all landowners in compensation assessment under the same notification, as per the provision of section 27-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The Appellants by filing this Appeal have assailed the judgment/award dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur in L.A. Misc. Case No.35 of 2017 in the matter of reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act'). The land measuring Ac.5.88 decimals in nine plots recorded under Khata No.84/13 of Mouza-Nandua belonging to the Respondents (claimants) had been acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of Subarnarekah Ichha Dam. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation of Rs.7,31,277/- for the said acquired land. In doing so, the market value of the land under Sarad-I and II kissam had been assessed at Rs.98,700/- per acre whereas the market value of the homestead land under acquisition had been fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. For the land under kissam Dahi-I , the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value at Rs.65,200/- per acre. However, in view of the demand raised by the Respondents for payment of higher compensation, the matter stood referred to the Court under section 18 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Referral Court') for determination of just and proper consideration for the said acquired land of the Respondents (claimants).

2. The Respondents (claimants) have advanced a claim that the market value of Gharabari and agricultural lands would be more than Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and it is said that the compensation as has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate and in that exercise, actual value of the acquired lands viewing all the attending factors has not been considered.

The above claim of the Respondents (claimants) was resisted by the Appellant. Before the Referral Court the Respondents (claimants) examined himself as C.W.1 and another independent witness has come to the witness box on his behalf as C.W.2. From the side of the Appellant, the certified copy of the Bench Mark Valuation sheet supplied by the Sub-Registrar, Bahalda has been proved and marked as Ext.A to A/2 series.

3. The Referral Court going to determine the just and proper compensation towards the acquired land as on the date of publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, i.e., on 04.07.2012 has finally determined the market value of the acquired land under Sarad-I kissam at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, Sarad-II kissam of land at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, Dahi-I as well as Sarad-III kissam of land at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and home- stead land @ Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. Having so answered, the Referral Court has directed the Appellant to make the payment of compensation for the acquired land computing the market value of the lands in question at the above rate and pay the same to the Respondents (claimants) along with all the available statutory benefits.

4. Heard Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel for the Respondents.

Perused the judgment/award passed by the learned Referral Court.

5. The Referral Court earlier in disposing the Land Acquisition Case No.30/16 on 19.09.2018 had determined the market value of the homestead kissam of land situated in the same village and in the very vicinity at Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. In that case the market value of the land under Sarad-I and II had been determined at Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- per acre respectively. In another Land Acquisition Case No.2 of 2018, the learned Referral Court in its judgment/award dated 30.09.2019 had found the market value of Dahi-I kissam of land of the same village and locality at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. In the other Land Acquisition Case No.31 of 2016 the market value of the land under Sarad-III kissam of that village and locality had been determined at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre by the judgment and award dated 30.09.2019. It is not in dispute that all these lands covered under aforesaid L.A. Case Nos.30/2016, 2/2018 and 31/2016 h