The Court affirmed that compensation in land acquisition cases must reflect true market value independent of the claimant's request, emphasizing the duty to assess fair compensation using proper valuation methods.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.02.2008 passed in M.J.C No.188 of 1997, arising out of L.A. Case No.15 of 1994, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhawanipatna, vide which the Court below partly allowed the claim of the Appellant (Petitioner in the Court below) on contest against the Respondents (Opposite Parties in the Court below) but rejected the prayer of the Appellant for enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts, which lead to the filing of the case, are that an area of Ac.6.57dec.under plot nos. 501, 514, 515, 520, 535, 512, 511, 502, 516, 523 and 534 appertaining to Khata No.54 of Village- Salebhata belonging to the Appellant were acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Lanjigarh Road- Junagarh Rail Link Project vide Notification No. 12692/R dated 17.03.1994 and declaration no. 14861/R dated 17.04.1995 in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, “the L.A. Act”. After inquiry, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded an amount of Rs.1,15,747/- towards compensation for the acquired land, which the Appellant received under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, which was registered as M.J.C No.188 of 1997, the referral Court, vide order dated 04.02.2008, partly allowed the claim of the Appellant on contest against the Respondents while rejecting the prayer for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,25,000/-. Hence, this appeal.

3. After giving opportunities to the parties to have their say and lead evidence, the Court below framed the following issues:-

(i) What is the market value of the case land?

(ii) Whether the petition of the claimant is maintainable?

4. The said issues were dealt with and answered by coming to a conclusion that, the petition filed by the Appellant (Claimant-Petitioner in the Court below) is partly allowed and the Appellant is entitled to get Rs.30,000/- per acre for the acquired land appertaining to plot nos. 501,514,515,520 and 535 along with other statutory benefits so also entitled to receive Rs.39,758/- for the plot nos. 511,502,516,523,534 and 512. In addition to the same, it was ordered that the Appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the differential market value from the date of publication of the notice under section 4 (1) of the L.A. Act till the date of award or the date of taking over possession of the acquired land, whichever is earlier, and solatium at the rate of 30%, so also interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession for one year and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of one year till the amount is actually paid.

5. This Appeal has been preferred on the ground that, the impugned judgment is illegal and contrary to law and the compensation amount is inadequate as the Court below awarded the compensation without considering the fair and equitable market value and without computing the potentiality of the land so also without following the norms, as prescribed under the L.A. Act & Rules. The Court below determined the value of the land basing upon the sales statistics as furnished by the Sub-Registrar, which should not be taken into consideration as the Court below failed to determine the value by adopting capitalization method in absence of any other method.

Further, as per Ext. C i.e the report prepared in Form No. 9 (A), in respect of fresh inquiry of the trees in the acquired land by the Amin and the Revenue Inspector and the Forest Officials, there is no facility of irrigation to the