JUDGMENT
Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.7.1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur, in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 132 of 1991.
2. The Case of the appellant is that the Government has acquired Ac. 0.40 decimals of land under Khata No. 8 of village Kansar belonging to the respondent for construction of Talcher-Sambalpur Railway Link under Gazette notification No. 1012 dated 6.6.1988. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher-Sambalpur Railway Link, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,628.82 paise for land, 30% of additional cost of Rs. 768.50 paise, and 12% for additional market value of Rs. 312.82 paise in total Rs. 3730.20 paise in favour of the respondent. The respondent received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer-appellant, but considering the same to be inadequate, he filed an objection and the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court below, while adjudicating the aforesaid matter, enhanced compensation to Rs. 10,000/-per acre. The case of the respondent is that the award amount was inadequate in comparison to the market value of the neighbouring villages. According to the respondent, the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low since the land value in his village as well as other villages is very high and the lands were assessed at the rate of Rs. 22,500/- per acre. The respondent claimant claims Rs. 25,000/- per acre as his lands are better than the other lands which were acquired in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 27 of 1990. The learned Civil judge (Sr. Divn.) after considering both the oral as well as the documentary evidence, by order dated 27.7.1995 held that the claimant respondent is entitled to higher compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per acre with 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation of the said amount and 9% interest per annum from the date of taking possession till the final payment is made. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) further held that in case of failure to pay the compensation amount within one year, the amount shall carry 15% interest per annum.
3. The issue involved in this appeal relates to higher compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sambalpur, in respect of the land acquired from the respondent for Talcher-Sambalpur Railway Link.
4. The contention of Mr. Raut, learned Additional standing Counsel, for determination of market value of the land in question is that the Land Acquisition Officer having determined the compensation amount considered all the relevant factors, the Court below should have accepted the same. Mr. Raut further contends that the Court
below has not considered the materials adduced by the parties in proper perespective and as such the award passed by the Court below is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
5. Mr. S. Panigrahi, on behalf of Mr. J.K. Panda, learned Counsel for the respondent, contends that the Court below has rightly passed the order after considering the evidence of both the parties relating to potential value of the acquired land. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the court below in awarding the compensation amount. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 3,730.29 paise.
6. This Court has perused the records, the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents exhibited before the learned trial Judge. The claimant-respondent, in order to prove his case, has examined himself as P.W. 1 and also produced the certified copy of the registered sale-deed, Ext. 1. The Land Acquisition Officer has examined one witness i.e. the Revenue Inspector and has exhibited no document.
7. In the present case there is no allegation by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer that Ext. 1 is not a genuine document. O. P. W. 1, the Revenue Inspector has himself admitted in his examination-in-chief that the land of the respondent-claimant is adjacent to the National High Way. In his cross-examination he also admitted that some persons of village Jujumara, i.e. the adjoining village, have been awarded Rs. 60,000/- per acre for acquisition of their lands. He also admitted that village Jujumara is at a distance of 21/2 K.Ms. from the claimant’s village Kansar. The appellant-Land Acquisition Officer has not adduced any evidence to discard Ext. 1 produced by the respondent-claimant. The appellant-Land Acquisition Officer has also no reply to the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. The land was acquired as far as 14 years back, and at present, the value of the lands has gone up.
8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sambalpur is found to be just and proper and the same is affirmed.
The First Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but there will be no, order as to cost.