A.K. Parichha, J.@mdashBoth the appeals arise out of and the same award passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in L.A. Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 and, therefore, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.
2. Ac. 0.400 decs of land appertaining to plot No. 20/782/864 under Khata No. 220/27 of Mouza Majena belonging to the claimant Sanatan Nayak was acquired by the State Government for Elephant Sanctuary by Notification No. 516 dated 04.04.1987 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the ''Act''). Learned Land Acquisition Officer, Puri awarded compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre. The claimant received that amount of compensation under protest and demanded reference of the matter to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Act for determination of market value of the acquired land. That is how the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhubaneswar in the above noted L.A. Misc. Case. To substantiate the claim for higher compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, the claimant examined himself and another witness, namely, Surendra Kumar Sahu and produced notification dated 04.04.1987, certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.10.1986 and the reference letter of the L.A. Collector which were marked as Exts.1 to 3 respectively. The State-opposite party examined the Revenue Inspector only as O.P.W.1 but did not produce any document. On consideration of the above noted evidence, both oral and documentary, learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 80,000/- per acre, and directed payment of compensation accordingly along with statutory benefits provided under the Act. Not feeling happy with the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri filed F.A. No. 150 of 2001. The claimant was also not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and filed F.A. No. 34 of 2001.
3. Mr. S.K. Gajendra, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant relying on Ext. 2 strongly contends that the location, variety and potentiality of the land noted in Ext.2 being similar to the acquired land, the referral Court should have awarded a higher rate of compensation at least at par with the rate at which the land under Ext.2 had been purchased. He also contends that the referral Court committed error on record in it''s remark that the acquired land is not fit for homestead purpose.
4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri, on the other hand, argues that all lands located near Bhubaneswar do not fetch high value and, therefore, the enhancement of the award by 10 times was not proper. He indicates that the land of the claimant was acquired for the purpose of Elephant Sanctuary, which itself suggests that situation of the land was not close to human habitation and for that reason the market value of the land could not be assessed as homestead land. He, accordingly, prays for reduction of the rate of compensation.
5. It is there in the evidence on record and is also not disputed that Ac.0.400 decs acquired land of the claimant situates in between Bhubaneswar and Khurda. It is also not disputed that some industrial units are there near the acquired land. This aspect has been clarified by the claimant and his witnesses. Ext. 2 is the certified copy of a registered sale deed, wherein Ac.0.112 decs, of land was purchased by P.W. 2 for Rs. 10,000/-. The sale deed was registered on 25.10.1986, which was about 10 months before the acquisition of land of the claimant. The land noted in Ext.2 is of Sharad-III variety situated in village-Majena and is indicated as fit for homestead. The land acquired is also of Sharad-III variety situates in village Majena. P.W. 2 clarified that the acquired land and land purchased under Ext.2 are fit for homestead and situate 100 yards apart. When both the lands belong to same variety and situate only 100 yards apart, learned referral Court cannot be said to have committed any error in relying Ext.2 as a relevant piece of evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land, particularly when there was no other specific evidence available regarding the value of these lands.
6. Evidence of P.Ws. clearly indicate that the acquired land situates near some industrial units and has electricity facility and is only 12 Kms away from Bhubaneswar. In such backdrop, one has to infer that the acquired land has adequate potential value. Learned referral Court, took all the above noted aspects into consideration but making an observation that the acquired land is not homestead as it was acquired for the purpose of Elephant Sanctuary, declined to accept the same rate as contemplated in Ext.2, ultimately assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. No reason has been assigned as to how learned referral Court arrived at this figure of Rs. 80,000/- as the market value for the acquired land. Once the evidence of the witnesses including that of opposite party No. 1 is considered as a whole, one can not but infer that the acquired land is similar in every aspect to the land under Ext. 2 and has the same market value as of that land. Learned referral Court, therefore, should have adopted the rate noted in Ext.2.
7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 89, 285/- per acre at which rate the land under Ext.2 had been purchased. Besides the compensation of the acquired land at the above said rate, the claimant would also be entitled to the statutory benefits as per provisions of the amended Act.
8. In the result, therefore, F.A. No. 150 of 2001 is dismissed and F.A. No. 34 of 2001 is partly allowed. In such peculiar circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own cost in the appeals.
