The court affirmed that reasonable guesswork is permissible in compensation assessments under the Land Acquisition Act, provided it balances equities and is supported by credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.

This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khordha in L.A. Reference Case No.47 of 2015, vide which the Court below allowed the claim of the Claimant (Respondent No.1 in the present Appeal) and ordered for higher compensation.

2. The factual matrix of this Appeal is that, pursuant to notification dated 22.01.2013 (wrongly indicated as 21.02.2012) made under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, shortly, ‘the Act, 1894’, an area of Ac.0.065 dec, of land relating to Plot No.1396 under Khata No.419 of Kisam- Sarad-Anajalasechita-1 of Mouza- Dabardhua in the district of Khordha belonging to the Claimant, having fruit bearing trees over the said land, was acquired for the purpose of Khordha Road-Bolangir New Broad Gauge Rail Link Project, Khordha. The Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, ‘LAO’, assessed the compensation @ Rs.88/- per decimal for Sarada Anjalasechita-I kisam of land (Rs.88,000/- per Acre) and value of trees at Rs.19,910/-, in total Rs. 38,265/-, towards the value of land and trees, which the Claimant/Respondent No.1 received under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was registered as L.A. Reference Case No.47 of 2015, the referral Court, relying on the exhibited documents and judgements of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1272 (Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) through LR and others Vs. Unison of India and others)and in AIR 2013 SC 3654 ( Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ), vide order dated 19.08.2019, allowed the claim of the Claimant and ordered for enhanced compensation of Rs.9,750/- @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for acquisition of Sarada Anjalasechita-I kisam of land and Rs.40,000/-, instead of Rs.19,910/-, for loss of trees and ordered for interest, solatium and other benefits as per the statute. Hence, this Appeal.

3. The Appeal has been preferred basically on the grounds that the Court below passed the order of enhancement of compensation in absence of any oral evidence so also relying on Ext.4, which is the bench mark valuation fixed for the sale of the land, obtained from Sub- Registrar, Bolagarh, brushing aside the sale statistics from the year 2005-2012 as well as the report of the DFO and Assistant Director Horticulture. Further, the Court below enhanced the value of land and trees only on the basis of guess work.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, reiterating the grounds agitated in the memorandum of appeal, submitted that the notification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 22.01.2013 and the bench mark valuation was obtained on 13.07.2013.Thereafter, the physical possession of the land of the Respondent No.1 was taken on 31.10.2013. However, the referral Court, while enhancing the compensation, took note of bench mark valuation report of Sub-Registrar, Bolagarh supplied to the Respondent No.1 in the year 2017, marked as Ext.4,so also Sale Deed of the year 2005, marked as Ext.5,and applying the guess estimate not only the price of the SaradaAnjalasechita-I land was enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre as against Rs.88,000/- per acre but also the value of the trees were enhanced from Rs.19,910/- to Rs.40,000/- on guess work. Hence, the impugned award passed by the referral Court deserves interference, being so done solely on guess estimate.

5. Though no such ground has been agitated in the memorandum of appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the sale transaction under Ext.5 is a small piece of land and should not have been taken into consideration by the referral Court to enhance the compensation to Rs.1,50,000