S.K. MISHRA,J. 1.

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30th August, 2018 in L.A. Misc. Case No.117 of 2013, vide which the Court below enhanced the Page 2 of 11 compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- per decimal for acquiring the land of the Respondent No.1 and ordered for payment of interest, so also solatium with other benefits as per the statute.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the suit lands i.e. Plot Nos.759 and 787 under Khata No.285/471, total Ac.0.44 decimals of land under Mouza-Laxmiprasad, P.S.

Itamati, District-Nayagarh belonging to Respondent No.1 have been acquired by the Government for Khurda-Bolangir Rail Link project. For the said acquisition a sum of Rs.4,42,898/-, in total, was awarded for land value and the same was paid to the claimant/Respondent No.1 with other benefits, which was received by him under protest.

The Respondent No.1 filed objection before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount. The stand of the Respondent No.1 before the Court below, inter alia, was that while assessing the market value of the suit land, a very lower compensation was awarded by the LAO. It is further case of the Respondent No.1 that though Kisam of the acquired lands were recorded as Sarad-II & Sarad Dofasali-II, but the same Page 3 of 11 is absolutely fit to be used for homestead purpose as the suit land is adjacent to NAC area of Nayagarh and other residential houses, Holly Family School, Hospital and R.W.S.S. Office are also situated nearer to the acquired land. The Respondent No.1 also took a plea that since one of the lands in the acquired village has been sold @ Rs.60,000/-

per decimal before acquisition, compensation for his land should also be fixed at the same rate.

After taking note of pleadings, so also evidence on record, the Court below enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- per decimal, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal.

3.

Heard Mr. Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel, so also Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the State-Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

4.

Mr. Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the referral Court has allowed the claim of the Respondent No.1 without considering the evidence adduced by the Appellant. He further submitted that the Respondent No.1 has received the amount of Page 4 of 11 compensation without any objection. While passing the impugned Judgment, the referral Court has categorically observed that the land in Ext.1 is a small patch of land than the land in question. The Kisam of the land and location are in different Chaka. Even though the referral Court observed that Ext. 1 i.e. RSD dated 21.10.2011, is not an example to compare the valuation of the acquired land, at the same time it enhanced the compensation in a whimsical manner.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that when the documents exhibited, so also oral evidences adduced by the Claimant/Respondent No.1 were negatived and disbelieved, the Court below should have dismissed the claim of the Claimant in limine. Mr. Rayaguru further submitted that the Claimant/Respondent No.1 received the awarded amount without any objection and no document was exhibited before the referral Court to show that the Claimant received the awarded amount under protest. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment.

5.

Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, relying on the judgment dated 13.03.2023 passed by this Court in L.A.A. No.122 of 2018, submitted that the present Page 5 of 11 Appeal is identical to L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 and the Appellant-

Union of India is also the Appellant in L.A.A. No.122 of 2018.

The suit land in the present Appeal was also acquired in terms of the same notification f