IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 (In the matter of an application under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)

State of Odisha & others ....... Appellants -Versus-

Kanchan Dalai & others ....... Respondent Advocate for the parties For Appellants : Mrs. U. Padhi, Addl. Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Advocate ----------------------------

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Judgment: 03.01.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.K. Mishra, J. Though this Appeal has been listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”, since the Respondents have already appeared, on being noticed in the matter of limitation, on consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment dated 07.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh in L.A. Case No.14 of 2002, vide which the Court below held that the Petitioners (present Respondents) are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per gunth in respect of acquired Ac.0.04 decimals of land with all other statutory benefits in terms of provision under Sections 23(1)(a), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, „L.A. Act‟.

3. The factual matrix of the present Appeal is that, an area of Ac.0.04 decimals appertaining to Plot No.43 under Khata No.296 of Sarad-III Kisam of agricultural land belonging to the Respondents of village- Nizigarh under Cuttack district was acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of Bhogara Minor Irrigation Project in pursuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act dated 31.05.1993. After taking into consideration all the contemporaneous materials, compensation was determined @ Rs.21,000/- per acre and in total Rs.1347.92p was received by the Respondents towards compensation under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, which was registered as L.A. Case No.14 of 2002, the referral Court, vide order dated 07.07.2007, allowed the claim of the Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below) by enhancing the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per gunth (@ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre) along with other statutory benefits. Hence, this Appeal.

4. This Appeal has been preferred on the grounds that, the Court below ought to have examined the validity of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, „L.A.O.‟ within the parameter and mandatory guidelines stipulated under Section 23 and 24 of the Act, 1894 so also the Court below failed to consider the contemporaneous materials pertaining to the acquired land and its vicinity under Ext.A as well as the trustworthy evidence of O.P.W.l in their proper prospective. Further, as per the settled legal position, the Claimants stand in the position of the Plaintiffs, on whom the burden of proof lies by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what has been granted by the L.A.O. Further, it is the duty of the Court to evaluate the evidence, even if no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the L.A.O. to assess the market value of the acquired land. Since no cogent documentary evidence has been adduced by the Claimants with regard to their claim for higher compensation, the ultimate conclusions of the Court below in fixing the market value of the acquired land exorbitantly on the basis of an un- contemporaneous R.S.D. vide Ext.1 and further by resorting to unreasonable surmises, are against the weight of evidence on record and legally unsustainable.

5. Mrs. U. Padhi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, submitted that though the determination was made by the L.A.O. within the parameters and mandatory guidelines stipulated under