SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, TALCHER v. TRIPURA MOHAN DEBATA

Pattnaik, learned A.S.C. for the State Appellant admits that the land of the present Respondent was acquired by the State Government pursuant to Notification dated 13.03.2015 and the mouza and kisam of the land, which was subject matter in LAA No.11 of 2022, are also similar as of the land of the present Respondent. The only difference between the earlier Appeal i.e. LAA No.11 of 2022 and this Appeal is that in the said Appeal, the kisam of lands acquired were Sarada-III so also Gharabari kisam of land whereas in the present Appeal, the land acquired by the State is confined to Gharabari kisam of land. Mr. Pattnaik further admits that the Court below enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.20,00,000/- per acre relying on the R.S.D. No.1946 dated 03.09.2014 for Gharabari kisam of land, which was marked as Exhibit-2 without any objection in the earlier case through P.W.2, who is the present Respondent in this Appeal and was also examined as P.W.1 before the Court below in this case. Mr. Pattnaik also admits that the sales statistics from S.R.O., Talcher, which was marked as Exhibit-D, was also relied upon by the referral Court for enhancing the market price of Gharabari kisam of land to Rs.20,00,000/-. However, relying on the judgment of the apex Court reported in (2003) 12 SCC 334 (Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others) and drawing attention of

2

this Court to various paragraphs of the said judgment, Mr. Pattnaik submits that since the R.S.D. vide No.1946 dated 03.09.2014 executed by the P.W.1, who is the vendor of the said Sale Deed, was intentional sale and pertains to a small patch of land, the Court below was not justified to fix the enhanced rate taking into consideration the said R.S.D. dated 03.09.2014. Hence, the impugned judgment deserves interference.

3. To counter the submission made by the learned A.S.C., the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that no such ground was taken before the Court below, as has been taken in this Appeal. Further, the Court below, taking into consideration the Exhibit-D, came to the conclusion that the Land Acquisition Officer has not conducted any enquiry as provided under Section 26 (1) (c) & (d) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, shortly, the Act, 2013, for determination of the market price of the Gharabari Kisam of land and admittedly the said R.S.D. dated 03.09.2014 was executed prior to notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013. Mr. Pradhan further submits that the facts of the case in LAA No.11 of 2022 so also evidence on record in the said case being identical to the present case, the judgment passed by this Court in LAA No.11 of

3

2022 is squarely applicable to the present Appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Pradhan prays to dismiss the Appeal.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case No.02 of 2020, it is found that the Court below, vide Paragraph 13, observed as follows:

"13. The stand of the Opposite Party that the sale transaction by virtue of RSD vide No.1946 dt.03.09.2014 was intentional sale has not been supported by any evidence or material on record. Even not a single question has been put/suggested to PW-1 (petitioner) that he did execute the RSD vide No.1946 dt.03.09.2014 intentionally. So without having any clear and cogent evidence from the side of the Opposite Party, it is not permissible to say that the petitioner alienated Ac.0.010 decimal of land from Plot No-1030/5849 intentionally or that the factum of acquisition of land was known to the public or petitioner prior to the notification and therefore the sale deed executed for Gharbari kisam of land prior to the notification would be discarded. In absence of any evidence it cannot be assumed that the RSD vide No.1946 dt.03.09.2014 was executed intentionally. It further transpires from Ext.D that the LAO has not conducted any enquiry as provided U/s- 26 (1) (c) & (d) of the Act for determination of market price of the gharbarikisam of land. Admittedly RSD No.1946 dt.03.09.2014 was executed prior to notification U/s-11(1) of the Act. When the provision of Law states that the market price has to be determined as on the date of publication of the notification U/s-11(1) of the Act, it is not permissible to say that prior to that date

4

the petitioner having derived knowledge about the same and having gone for transaction those would be kept aside from consideration unless of course it is shown through cogent evidence to be speculative and fictitious. So no justification was found in not considering the sale price @ Rs.20,000/- per decimal as assessed in the RSD No-1946 dt.03.09.2014 for determination of the market price of Gharbari kisam of land."

(Emphasis supplied)

Also, the Court below, vide Paragraph 14, held as follows:

" xxx From the evidence of OPW-1 it is also clear that the distance of the land under acquisition is 23 KM 750 Meter from the nearest urban area i.e. Talcher.

Considering the distance of the land under acquisition from the nearest urban area, the market value of the land will be multiplied by the multiplying factor i.e. 1.4 as has been notified by the Govt. of Odisha, Revenue & Disaster Management Department vide Circular No. RDM-LAA-CLRFIC-0002- 2015(Part)/22485/R&DM dtd.22.06.2018."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. It is further ascertained from the L.C.R. that taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Court below held that the Respondent is entitled to get compensation of Rs.7,40,000/- for Ac.0.370 decimals of Gharbari kisam of land @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, Rs.2,93,533.40/- towards the compensation for his homestead structures, Rs.90,292/- towards compensation for his

5

well and Rs.98,149/- towards the value of the trees. In addition to that, it was held that the present Respondent is also entitled to get statutory solatium @ 100% on the market value, the additional market value on cost of land @ 12% per year for two years and other benefits and ordered to direct the present Appellant to pay the differential amount within four months from the date of the said order with usual interest after deducting the money already received by the present Respondent.

6. In view of the above, there being no infirmity in the impugned order passed in Land Acquisition Case No.02 of 2020 as the present Appeal being covered by the judgment of this Court dated 06.02.2024 in L.A.A. No.11 of 2022, the Appeal stands dismissed.

7. The State-Appellant is directed to pay the differential amount with other benefits to the Respondent in terms of the observation made vide judgment dated 06.02.2024 passed in LAA No.11 of 2022 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

(S.K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, 20^thMarch, 2024/Padma

6