JUDGMENT
R.K. Patra, A.C.J.
1. Aforesaid three appeals filed at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri are respectively directed against the orders dated 28.8.1997, 23.10.1997 and 23.10.1997 passed by Shri S. N. Mishra, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Land Acquisition Misc. Case Nos. 326 of 1994, 313 of 1994 and 312 of 1994 by which market value for the acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000.00 per acre. Contending that the market value was determined on higher side against the weight of evidence on record, the appeals have been filed. As they are all analogous and common question of fact and law is involved, they are all disposed of by this common order.
2. In First Appeal No. 279 of 1998 land measuring Ac.0.90 decimals in plot no. 73 under khata No. 7 of mouza Bharatpur belonging to the respondent was the subject matter of. acquisition. In First Appeal No. 341 of 1998 respondents’ land measuring Ac.0.815 decimals (Ac.0.670 dec. in plot No. 75 and Ac.0.145 dec. in plot No. 77 under khata No. 8} located at mouza Bharatpur was the subject matter of acquisition. In First Appeal No. 342 of 1998 respondents’ land measuring Ac.0.670 decimals in plot No. 112 under khata No. 3 of the same mouza Bharatpur had been acquired. All the aforesaid lands were acquired by the notification dated 11.1.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of construction of public garden (Ekamra Kanan) in mouza Bharatpur, Thana-New-Capital No. 1, Bhubaneswar in the district of Puri.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 55,000/- per acre. On reference being made under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act at the instance of the respondents, as already indicated, the learned Civil Judge determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4.00 lakhs per acre.
4. The learned Civil Judge determined the compensation at the above rate basing on the judgment pronounced by him in L.A.. Misc. Case No. 315 of 1994 wherein the acquired land was situated in Mouza-Nayapalli which admittedly adjoins village-Bharatpur and the date of notification under Section 4(1) was the very date i.e. 11.1.1984 and the purpose of acquisition is one and the same. There is no dispute that mouza-Bharatpur and mouza-Nayapalli adjoins each other and the lands were acquired under the same
notification for the same purpose. The lands in question are also situated in close proximity to each other. The order passed in L.A. Misc. Case No. 315 of 1994 on the basis of which market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 4.00 lakhs per acre was challenged in this Court by the Land Acquisition Officer in First Appeal No. 284 of 1998. A learned Single Judge by an elaborate order dated 9.10.2002 dismissed the appeal upholding the determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.00 lakhs per acre.
5. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the Reference Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar) determined compensation @ Rs. 4.00 lakhs per acre in respect of the land in mouza-Nayapalli adjacent to mouza-Bharatpur which was acquired for the same purpose [construction of public garden (Ekamra Kanan)] vide misc. case Nos. 120 of 1988, 74 of 1988, 75 of 1988 and 364 of 1994. Against the order passed in Misc. Case No. 364 of 1994 the Land Acquisition Officer filed First Appeal No. 109 of 1995 in this Court which was withdrawn, whereas in Misc. Case Nos. 120 of 1988, 74 of 1988 and 75 of 1988 no appeals were filed. The above evidence regarding determination of market value @ Rs. 4.00 lakhs per acre for the adjoining land cannot be lost sight of. This is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that in another case, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar had determined the market value of the land at Rs. 80,000/-per acre by order dated 10.7.1991 in L.A. Misc. Case No. 268 of 1988. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contended that was a case where no evidence was let in on behalf of the claimants for higher compensation, but in the instant case evidence was led by the claimants for higher compensation which was accepted by the learned Civil Judge and, therefore, fixing of market value @ Rs. 4.00 lakhs is justified. There is force in the contention of the counsel for the respondents.
7. As indicated above, in these matters, evidence was led for higher compensation by the claimants which was accepted by the Civil Judge, with which we concur.
For the reasons aforesaid , there is no merit in these appeals which are hereby dismissed.
M. Papanna, J.
I agree.