Collector (Land Acquisition) vs Prema Chand Agrawal

P.K. Tripathy, J.—The above named appellant has filed this appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, "the Act"), challenging to the legality and correctness of the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharmagarh, on 19.12.1994 in Misc. Judicial Case No. 9/80 of 1991. The claimant in the Court below is the respondent in this appeal. He has also filed a cross-objection claiming for higher valuation. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of by this common judgment.

An area of Ac. 0.40 decimals was acquired by the State Government for construction of staff quarters for the jail staff of Dharmagarh Sub-Jail. Advance possession of the land was taken in the year 1955 whereas the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was made on 27.8.1980 as per the declaration dated 28.7.1980. Appellant awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,321.15 p. towards the cost, solatium, interest and additional interest. Respondent/ cross-objector raised objection to the low valuation and because of that a reference u/s 18 of the Act was made to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmagarh. In course of enquiry, both the parties examined one witness each and the appellant relied on Exts. A and B, i.e., the sale statistics and working-sheet, whereas the respondent relied on Ext. 1 i.e., copy of a sale deed. On perusal of such evidence on record, the Court below passed an award on 9.3.1992. The Court below determined the compensation @ Rs. 58.3337- (fifty eight thousand three hundred thirty three) per acre and passed the award granting compensation in that manner along with other statutory benefits. Two appeals were preferred against that award, vide F.A. Nos. 77 of 1992 and 78 of 1992. On 21.4.1993, a common judgment was delivered by this Court by remanding the matter to the Court below to afford further opportunity of hearing to both the parties in view of the circumstance that appellant adduced some evidence, i.e., registered sale deeds with respect to the case land. It was observed in that judgment that both the parties be afforded with opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claim.

As noted in the impugned award, after receipt of the record on remand the claimant examined two witnesses whereas the appellant examined the same witness. The claimant tendered in evidence one more sale deed, marked Ext. 2, whereas three sale deeds produced from the side of the appellant were marked Exts. C, D & E. On assessment of such evidence, learned Civil Judge (S.D.) determined the compensation @ Rs. 335/- (three hundred thirty five) per decimal, i.e., Rs. 33,500/- per acre. The Court below allowed the other statutory benefits including the interest calculated by the appellant for the advance possession from the year 1955. The stand of the appellant is that determination of compensation in the aforesaid manner is contrary to the evidence on record and it is on the higher side. On the other hand, contention of the respondent is that determination of value in the earlier award at least should be restored inasmuch as the respondent is not capable of paying Court-fee for a higher valuation.

Considering the aforesaid argument advanced by the parties and perusing the evidence on record, this Court finds that learned Civil Judge has made a due assessment of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, in support of his finding for determining the value of the land in the aforesaid manner. No doubt, Exts. C, D and E are the transactions relating to the portion of the acquired land was for less amount, but that was prior to the date of acquisition. Apart from that, the appellant does not dispute to the fact that the locality in which the acquired land situates has already been amalgamated within the township of Dharmagarh, a Sub-Divisional headquarter. Under such circumstance, determination of the valuation at Rs. 33,500/-per acre does not appear to be excessive. Similarly, the evidence adduced by the claimant does not make them entitled to a higher compensation than that. The claim of damage has been negatived by the Court below and the respondent does not appeal against that. Be that as it may, in that respect also this Court finds that the Court below has recorded that finding because of want of proper evidence from the side of the respondent.

For the reasons indicated above, this Court finds that the impugned award is not liable to be interfered with either on the prayer of the appellant or the respondent as the cross-objector. Hence, the appeal and the cross-objection, both stand dismissed. In view of that, parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigations so far as this forum is concerned. Hearing fee is assessed at contested scale.