Spl. Land Acquisition Officer vs Maharani Biswal & Ors

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ....Appellant

VERSUS

MAHARANI BISWAL & ORS. ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated

04.10.2001 passed by the High Court of Orissa whereby the High

Court, vide a common judgment, dismissed First Appeal No. 428

of 1990 filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and partly

allowed First Appeal No. 369 of 1990 filed by the Respondents

herein.

Page 1 of 10 2. The issue that falls for consideration in the present appeal is

whether the assessment and determination of compensation

awarded to the respondents for acquisition of their land and

increasing it from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- per acre is on the

higher side and is a proper reflection of the market price of the

land.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that Land

measuring Ac. 4.98 decimals appertaining to Plot Nos.

6588/6861, 6567, 6576, 6565, 6561 to 6564, 6581, 5873, 6566

and 6560 under Khata No. 88 situated in village Lodhani under

Parajang Police Station in the District of Dhenkanal was notified

to be acquired for Parajang Distributory as per Revenue

Department declaration No. 9420 dated 18.02.1987. The Land

Acquisition Officer vide order dated 02.03.1988 granted

compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3100/-

(Taila Land) and Rs. 5490/- (Sarad Land) per acre. The owner-

claimants received the compensation so determined under protest

and moved the Ld. Subordinate Judge by L.A. Misc. No. 37/88

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act") against the order of the Land Acquisition

Page 2 of 10

Officer dated 02.03.1988.

4. The Ld. Subordinate Judge, after receiving evidence, by an order

dated 06.09.1990, determined the compensation of the acquired

land at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. Subordinate Judge

dated 06.09.1990, the claimants filed First Appeal No. 369 of

1990 and the Land Acquisition Officer filed First Appeal No. 428 of

1990 before the High Court of Orissa. The High Court vide order

dated 04.10.2001, by a common judgment, dismissed First Appeal

No. 428 of 1990 filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and partly

allowed First Appeal No. 369 of 1990 filed by the claimants and

thereby enhanced the compensation of the said land from Rs.

10,000/- per acre to Rs. 75,000/- per acre.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 04.10.2001, the Land

Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal, upon which, we heard the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew our

attention to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court and by making reference to the same, the counsel

submitted that despite clear findings recorded by the Reference

Page 3 of 10

Court determining compensation of the land acquired at Rs.

10,000/- per acre on proper appreciation of the documentary as

also of oral evidence on record, it was not justified for the High

Court to enhance the compensation to Rs. 75,000/- per acre

without properly appreciating the documents on record.

8. He also submitted that the High Court relied upon the sale deeds

by which very small pieces of land were sold and transferred. He,

therefore, submitted that the price at which such small pieces of

lands were sold did not reflect the correct market value.

Moreover, he submitted that the land was not much developed as

there were hardly four or five houses in the vicinity. He drew our

attention to the evidence led before the court to substantiate his

claim. He also submitted that expenses were required to be

incurred by the Government to make the acquired land fit for the

purpose for which it was being acquired. It was submitted that in

that regard, deduction was required to be made as certain lands

were going to be lost for which deduction was called for as has

been repeatedly held by this Court, but that was not done by the

High Court in the present case and, therefore, the judgment and

order is required to be set aside and quashed.

Page 4 of 10 9. Counsel appearing for the respondents however, refuted the

aforesaid submissions while submitting that the aforesaid sale

deeds relate to lands, which are located near the acquired land

and so they were the best guide to determine the compensation

and, therefore, the High Court was justified in relying on the said

sale deeds and arriving at a just and fair compensation.

10. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the counsel

appearing for the parties, we have ourselves scrutinized the

records. The entire burden is placed on respondent to prove and

establish that they are entitled to more than Rs. 3,100/- per acre

which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. In order

to prove the said fact, the respondent examined four witnesses

and relied upon five sale deeds which were exhibited as Ext. 3

which is dated 14.9.1988, Ext. 4 dated 15.4.1985, Ext. 5 dated

25.5.1984, Ext. 6 dated 15.7.1985, whereas the Respondents'

claimants also relied on Ext. 7 to show the location of G.P. Office

and Grain Gola Office. The respondents also filed on record a map

as Ext. 8 which discloses that a road runs in between the acquired

land. However, there is no evidence to show that the aforesaid

road, which runs in between the acquired land is a national

highway. No such documentary evidence was placed on record to

Page 5 of 10

prove the said fact. The notification under Section 4 in the

present case was issued on 18.2.1987 and, therefore, market

value as existing near about the said date and near about the

same land is to be determined and assessed. The Reference

Court has very elaborately and minutely discussed the entire

evidence on record including the deposition of the witnesses and

on appreciation thereof has come to a definite finding and

conclusion that the acquired land on the date of issuance of the

notification under Section 4 cannot be valued and assessed at

more than Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Consequently, the said amount

was determined by the Reference Court as just and fair

compensation for the land acquired.

11.As against the aforesaid findings giving cogent reasons, the High

Court, failed to indicate as to how the aforesaid findings are

unreasonable and unjustified fixing the compensation of the land

at Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The High Court enhanced the

compensation to Rs. 75,000/- per acre without any appreciation

of the evidence on record and also without considering the

findings of the learned Reference Court and ultimately rejecting

the same. It was necessary for the High Court to give reasons for

its disagreement with the findings of the Reference Court but

Page 6 of 10

nothing of that nature was done by the High Court and the High

Court arrived at an abrupt decision raising the compensation to

Rs. 75,000/- per acre.

12.In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in the

case of Navanath and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported

in (2009) 14 SCC 480, in which this Court while discarding the

findings of the High Court, which were found to be based on

surmises and conjecture, restored to the findings of the Reference

Court which were based on detailed examination of materials

brought on record held thus: -

"31. .................The Reference Judge had taken

into consideration the evidences adduced on behalf

of both the parties not only with regard to the

classification of the land but also the number of

trees, their age, the quality, etc. We may notice that

the learned Reference Judge determined the

question in regard to the classification of land on the

basis of the evidences adduced before it by

individual landowners; by way of example, having

regard to the fact that the claimants had failed to

prove that the land had any irrigational facility, the

learned Reference Judge classified the lands as

jirayat lands. If the State was aggrieved thereby, it

was bound to show that the findings arrived at by

the Reference Court is not sustainable having

regard to the materials brought on record.

32. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned

Reference Judge on the basis of the materials

brought on record, in our opinion, could not have

Page 7 of 10

been interfered with by the High Court on the

surmises and conjectures..............."

The Court further observed: -

"46. ....................A court of law must base its

decision on appreciation of evidence brought on

record by applying the correct legal principles.

Surmises and conjectures alone cannot form the

basis of a judgment."

With regard to computation of the amount of compensation this

Court held as follows: -

"44. Indisputably, for the purpose of computation of

amount of compensation a large number of factors

have to be taken into consideration, namely, nature

and quality of land, whether irrigated or unirrigated,

facilities for irrigation like existence of well, etc.

presence of fruit-bearing trees, the location of the

land, closeness to any road or highway, the

evenness thereof whether there exists any building

or structure."

13.Since the High Court has not considered the oral evidence and

also not properly analysed the documentary evidence available on

record, the judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot

be sustained and has to be interfered with. This is also because

of the fact that the High Court proceeded on a wrong notion that

the sale deeds of tiny pieces of land could be the determining

factor as the land acquired in the present case is Ac. 4.98

Page 8 of 10

decimals as against the sale deeds by which not even 1 decimal of

land was sold. There is total misreading of the evidence on record

and also misinterpretation of the legal proposition settled by this

Court.

14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we

set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and

we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should

discharge its duty and responsibility of appreciating the entire

evidence on record as it is the last court of appeal in view of the

provisions of Section 54 of the Act. The High Court shall

appreciate the entire evidence on record and thereafter give a

proper finding on the basis of both, oral and documentary

evidence by taking notice of the observations made herein and

thereafter decide all the issues that are raised before it by the

parties.

15.We also desire that this case requires early disposal by the High

Court and, therefore, we direct the parties to appear before the

High Court on 15th September, 2011 for obtaining the dates in the

appeal.

16.With the above observations and directions, this appeal is

disposed of as allowed but leaving the parties to bear their own

Page 9 of 10

costs.

............................................J

[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

............................................J

[Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi

August 24, 2011.

Page 10 of 10