The central legal point established in the judgment is the proper determination of market value in land acquisition cases, considering evidence of nearby land valuations and previous court references.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellant by filing this Appeal under Section-54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short called as ‘the LA Act’) has challenged the award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Referral Court’) in Land Acquisition No.402 of 2014 in the matter of reference under section 18 of the Act.

2. Based upon a requisition made by the Appellant, the Government of Orissa published notification on 16.08.2007 under section 4(1) of the LA Act for acquisition of Ac.8.567 decimals of land owned by several persons in the Revenue Village of Karanjia under Balasore Town Police Station. The purpose was for construction of bypass road from Kuruda to Patrapada. Subsequently, notification under section 6 of the LA Act was published on 28.08.2008.

The land belonging to the original Respondent No.1 (Since Dead and are represented by his legal representatives as Respondent Nos.1(ka) to 1(gha)) under Plot Nos.674, 675, 676, 678 and 812 under Khata No.172 and under Plot Nos.679 & 680 under Khata No.67 of Mouza-Karanjia, in total measuring Ac.0.977 decimals was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the land at Rs.25,000/-per decimal. This assessment was made taking into account the bench mark valuation as maintained in the Base Value Register in the District Sub-Registrar Office as per the provisions of Registration Act and Rules for the purpose of registration of documents relating to the transactions of the land. It is stated by the Respondents 1(Ka) to 1(Gha) that the valuation was on a lower side and that is not the actual market price prevailing as on the date of notification. They further stated that while assessing the market value of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into account the developments which have taken place in the vicinity and especially the potentiality as it stood then and the future potentiality. It is stated that their land is on the side of the road attached with other facilities. It is said that similar type of land in the locality are being sold for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-per decimals. The objection being raised with regard to determination of the market value and assessment of compensation, as made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter had been referred to the Referral Court.

3. The Referral Court, based on the evidence let in by the parties and upon their examination and evaluation, has determined the market value of the land, which has been acquired in the proceeding at Rs.50,266/-per decimal. Accordingly, it was directed that the compensation be determined and paid to the Respondent Nos.1(Ka) to 1 (Gha).

4. Mr. A.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that when the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value of the land at Rs.25,000/- per decimal, the learned Referral Court has unreasonably enhanced the same by almost two. He submitted that in doing so, the learned Referral Court has not followed the proper process and its approach is not in the right direction in determining the market value of the land as on the date of notification.

5. Mr.N.Panda, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 (Ka) to 1(Gha) supported the determination of the market value of the land, as has been made by the learned Referral Court. According to him, banking upon the valuation of the nearby land, as had been determined in an earlier reference being carried up-to High Court in an Appeal and then having applied, 15% escalation per year over it just and proper market value of the land has been found out. He further submitted that by such determination of the market value of the land, as has been made by the learned Referral Court, has been taken care of all the relevant factors and potentiality of the land as it then stood as also the future potentiality.

6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully gone through the award passed by the learned Referral Court, which i