The determination of compensation for acquired land must be based on market value assessments considering locational advantages and comparable sales, as established by evidence and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 13.02.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.69 of 2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Nayagarh, 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 brief facts, which led to filing of the Appeal, are that an area of Ac.0.88 decimals in Plot No.871, area of Ac.013 decimals, Plot No.897, area of Ac.006 decimals, Plot No.757/2374, area of Ac.0.22 decimals, Plot No.756, area of Ac.0.31 decimals & Plot No.846/1305, area of Ac.0.16 decimals under Khata No. 285/265 of Kisam Sarad-II and Sarad dofasal-II belonging to the Respondent No.1/Claimant, situated at Village- Laxmiprasad, P.S/Dist- Nayagarh, were acquired for the purpose of Khurda Road-Bolangir Rail Link Project in pursuance of notification under Section 4(1) dated 13.03.2012. The Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, hereinafter ‘LAO’, assessed the compensation in total at Rs.8,85,796/- for an area of Ac.0.88 decimals, which the Claimant/Respondent No.1 received under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, ‘the Act’, which was registered as L.A Misc. Case No.69 of 2013, the referral Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018 allowed the claim of the Claimant so also ordered for higher compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal for acquisition of his land and interest, solatium and other benefits as per statute. Hence, this Appeal.

3. As is revealed from the L.C.R, after giving opportunities to the parties to have their say and lead evidence, the Court below framed the following issues:-

i) What is the fair market value of the acquired case land at the time of publication of acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act?

ii) To what relief the Claimant/Petitioner is entitled for?

4. The said issues were dealt with and answered by coming to a conclusion that the Claimant/Respondent No.1 is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal of his land and interest, solatium and other benefits, as per the statute.

5. The Appeal has been preferred basically on the grounds that, the referral Court has misdirected himself in appreciating the materials available on record and wrongly assessed the market value of the acquired land on higher side. Further, the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction without examining the validity of the award determined by the LAO, as per the guidelines stipulated under section 23 and 24 of the Act. Further, the conclusion arrived by the Court below, being based upon untrustworthy statements and interested witnesses are against the weight of evidence on record and legally not sustainable. The reason being, though the burden of proving that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher compensation by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence is always on the claimant so also it is the duty of the Court to evaluate the evidence on record. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Petitioner-Claimant to assess the market value of the land. Moreover, the Court below has grossly erred in discarding the sale statistics and working sheet, which were exhibited by both the Appellant/Opposite Parties and duly proved by adducing oral evidence.

6. A further ground has been urged in the Appeal that, since there is no evidence on record showing that the lands involved in L.A. Misc Case No.69 of 2013 are of similar Kissam to the land involv