Compulsory land acquisition compensation must prioritize actual market value determined through comparable transactions, rejecting average calculations unless strongly justified.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed in LAMC No.41/12 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Kamakhyanagar, vide which the Court below confirmed the compensation amount as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) so also directed the LAO to pay additional Rs.10,000/-for damage caused to the embankment of pond belonging to the Appellant and also ordered for payment of all the statutory benefits on such additional amount of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The brief facts, which led to filing of the Appeal are that, an area of Ac.0.60 decimals appertaining to Plot No.99 of Taila-II Kissam under Khata No.07 of Mouza- Gopigadia was acquired by the Govt. for the purpose of Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Rail Link Project, vide Notification No.18764 dated 10.05.2010, published under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act. The LAO assessed the compensation in total at Rs.40,000/- per acre and a notice under section 12(2) of the L.A. Act was issued to the Appellant to receive compensation amount of Rs.72,022/- including the market price of the acquired land along with other statutory benefits provided under the L.A. Act. Being dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the Appellant filed his written objection before the L.A. Collector and received the compensation under protest.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issue:-

i) Whether the Appellant/Petitioner is entitled to have an amount of higher compensation than the amount settled by the O.P?

4. The said issue was dealt with and answered by coming to a conclusion that the market price of the acquired land as determined by the Special LAO is correct and the Appellant is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.10,000/- more for damage caused to the embankment of pond so also other benefits as per the statute on such additional compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

5. The Appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds that, the land of the Appellant measuring Ac.0.60 decimals was compulsorily acquired by the Govt. and though the ROR reflects that the Kissam of the acquired land is Taila-II, she had excavated a pond over the land by spending huge money and undertaking Pisciculture over the same, from which she was earning Rs.40,000/- per year as net income. Though at the time of acquisition, the acquired land was a pond, since it is adjacent to N.H-200 and G.P. road, it has a great potentiality to be converted into homestead land, but the same has not been taken into consideration by the court below. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered. Further, since the Govt. acquired Ac.0.60 dec. out of total plot measuring Ac.2.00 from the middle for rail line, remaining Ac.1.40 dec. of land has become scattered and useless, for which she sustained considerable damage.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, the registered sale deed as under Ext.3 i.e. certified copy of the RSD No.43 of 1999 & Ext.4 i.e. certified copy of RSD No.1380 of 2009 should have been taken into consideration by the Court below for reasonable guess work of determination of the market value which would have increased the market value of the acquired land. Similarly, the State Opposite Party exhibited the working sheet, which refl