State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ishwar Das Lodhi

This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the order/award dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.15 of 2007.

Facts of the case are that a land of the Respondent bearing Khasra No.512 area 1.66 acres situated at Village Puraina, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon was compulsorily acquired by the Appellant for construction of a canal under the provisions of the Act. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 7.2.2003 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.6.2003 and later on the award with regard to the compensation was passed on 19.1.2004 vide Annexure A2. The Respondent without any protest received the compensation on 3.2.2004. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a reference under Sections 5 and 8 of the Act before the Collector which was sent to the District Court Rajnandgaon for adjudication as per the provisions of the Act. The Learned Additional District Judge, Khairagarh while exercising powers under Section 18 of the Act has held that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not proper and the Learned Additional District Judge after perusing the same sent the case to calculate the compensation as per the guideline of Sub-Registrar. Hence, this appeal by the Appellant/State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submitted that the Court below has erred in holding that the reference under Section 18 of the Act is maintainable after receiving the compensation by the Respondent with protest. The Court below has also committed gross error in accepting the reference, which was time barred. The impugned order passed by the Court below is not a speaking order and is not an award under Section 26 of the Act. Therefore, it is prayed by the Learned Counsel that the impugned award/order dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge be set aside.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant/State.

I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the Court below and other material annexed with the record.

The reference has been made on 2 grounds as follows:

(i) Instead of the fact that the land which was acquired was an irrigated land, the compensation was awarded on the basis of non-irrigated land,

(ii) The compensation was not granted on the basis of market value of the acquired land.

The Learned Additional District Judge, relying on the entries of Khasra Panchshala for the years from 1991-92 to 1995-96 (Ex.P1) and electricity bills for the months of January and August of the year 1992 (Ex.P2 and P3), opined that the land which was acquired was the irrigated land. I have perused the above documents and also perused the statement of the Respondent’s Witness No.1 Patwari Anil Verma. There is no dispute on the point that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 7.2.2003 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.6.2003 and the award of compensation was passed on 19.1.2004. In kaifiyat column of Khasra Panchshala of 1991-92, one well and one electric pump are mentioned. Likewise, in Khasra Panchshala of 1994-95 also, the land is shown as irrigated land and one well and one electric pump are also shown. Patwari Anil Verma admitted the fact that in Khasra Panchshala of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, there is no mention of irrigated land. Though he stated that in the Khasra Panchshala of 1994-95 v-i- is mentioned, but he also admitted that in that also there is over-writing. From the above admissions made by Patwari Anil Verma, it is clear that in the Khasra Panchshala from 1991-92 to 1995-96, no irrigated land is mentioned. No Khasra Panchshala of the year of notification, i.e., of 2003 is produced. The Respondent has also not produced any evidence to show that in the year 2003 in the acquired land there was a well and one electric pump was also installed there. Therefore, only on the basis of the entry for the year 1991-92, it cannot be established that in the year 2003 also the acquired land was irrigated land, one well was there and one electric pump was also installed there. Therefore, the finding of the Learned Additional District Judge that the acquired land was irrigated land is not in accordance with the evidence available on record.

With regard to the valuation of the acquired land, from perusal of the award dated 19.1.2004 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it also appears that valuation of the acquired land was done on the basis of market value. In paragraph 10 of the award dated 19.1.2004, the Land Acquisition Officer mentioned the procedure which was followed for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, in paragraph 11 of the award, market value of the acquired land was determined. Therefore, the finding of the Learned Additional District Judge in this regard is also not in accordance with the evidence available on record.

Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge is set aside.