L.A. Collector vs Smt. Dumuni Hasada And Ors. on 15 April, 2003

0
52
Orissa High Court
L.A. Collector vs Smt. Dumuni Hasada And Ors. on 15 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 96 (2003) CLT 26
Author: P Mohanty
Bench: P Mohanty

JUDGMENT

Pradip Mohanty, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Balasore, challenging the order dated 19.7.1989 passed by the Subordinate Judge (as it then was), Balasore in L, A. Misc. Case No. 204 of 1988,

2. The brief facts of the case is that pursuant to the notification under Section 4(i) of the Act, the appellant-Land Acquisition Collector acquired Ac. 0.42.2/3 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 2915 of village Gobarghata in the District of Balasore, which belonged to the claimants-respondents, for the purpose of construction of weigh-Bridge and staff quarters at Laxmannath Check Gate. For the purpose of compensation the market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 38,000/- per acre which the claimants-respondents received with objection. Therefore, reference was made to the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore, under Section 18 of the Act.

3. In order to prove their cases, the claimants-respondents have exarnined two witnesses and the L.A. Collector has examined himself and proved Exts. A, Band C.

After analysing the evidence, both oral and documentary, on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore, allowed the claim of the respondents-claimants and awarded higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre and directed the appellant to pay the compensation with 9% interest for the first year and interest at the rate of 15% for the period exceeding one year till payment and with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said order, the L. A. Collector, Balasore, has filed this appeal.

4. In course of hearing, Mr. Debasis Das, learned Add,l. Government Advocate, urged that the appellant-L. A. Collector had correctly fixed the market value and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is not in conformity with the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. He also contended that the award of higher compensation is exorbitant and, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

Mr. D. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the findings of the trial Court and submitted that the appellant having failed to prove its assessment of compensation by cogent evidence, this Court ought not interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

5. The only question involved in this appeal is the quantum of compensation.

This Court perused the evidence on record and the order of the trial Court. On going through the evidence of the respondents-claimants, this Court finds that claimant was examined as P.W. 1. She has stated that lands at her village are sold at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per decimal and the appellant has not properly paid the compensation to her. P.W. 2 is a resident of another village. He has stated that his land is situated at a di’stance of 200 cubits from the acquired land. Said land measures Ac. 0.05 decimals which he purchased in the year 1986 for Rs. 5,500/-. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. The L. A. Collector has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and proved Exts. A, B and C, which are Gazette notification, xerox copy of sale statistics and a copy of order-sheet in L.A. Case No. 1/87 respectively. In cross-examination he stated that he brought the copy of sale-statistics from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jaleswar. He’admitted that one Panchanan Swain, Amin obtained the sale statistics. He could not say if said Panchanan had correctly noted the sale statistics. It is surprising also to note that he failed to withstand the test of cross-examination by saying that he cannot say the actual rate of the land prevalent in the area.

It appears to this Court that though the xerox copies of the documents, Exts. B and C have been proved by the appellant, but they have not been proved as secondary evidence in accordance with law by the appellant. Moreover he has failed to withstand the test of cross-examination by admitting to have not known the actual rate of the land. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly discarded the evidence of the appellant and this Court in absence of any other pleadings by the appellant, is reluctant to interfere with the impugned award of the trial Court and the same is affirmed.

6. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here