Sanju Panda, J.@mdashThis First Appeal has been filed by the claimant Appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 5th September, 2001 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in Title Suit No. 297 of 1996.
2. Appellant is the Plaintiff. She has filed the suit for declaration that the suit land belongs to her and the Defendants without any right constructed a pucca house and installed the pump house over the suit land which is null and void. She also prayed for awarding compensation in her favour as per the Land Acquisition Act with pendente lite and future interest. The Plaintiff has stated that the Defendants constructed a pump house unauthorisedly over the disputed land to supply water to Choudwar Circle Jail and E.S.I. Hospital and the aforesaid pump house is situated over an area of Ac.0.12 decimals of land out of Ac.0.50 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 52/ 1483 under Khata No. 71 which exclusively stands in the name of the Plaintiff in the settlement record and she is the owner in possession of the said land. Since the Defendants have constructed the said pump house for public purpose, the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for such unauthorized construction.
3. The Respondents-Defendants filed their joint written statement. In the written statement, inter alia, they have stated that they obtained due permission from the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi North Division, Jagatpur on 17.3.1990. They constructed a pump house over Plot No. 53 under Khata No. 449 in mouza Chasapada. Since the aforesaid land is not belonging to the Plaintiff, she is to entitled to any compensation.
4. On the above pleadings, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack formulated as many as five issues which are as follows;
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law?
2. Whether the Plaintiff has got cause of action to file the suit?
3. Whether the Defendants have constructed a pump house either over Plot No. 52/1488 or 53?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to realize compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act for the unauthorized construction over his land?
5. To what other relief the Plaintiff is entitled to?
5. In order to substantiate their pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Civil Judge came to a finding that the Plaintiff has not taken any step to get the land demarcated through a Civil Court commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, it cannot be said that the pump house was constructed over Plot Nos. 52/1488 and 53 and such construction of pump house is obstructing the Plaintiff''s land. It is difficult on the part of the Court to come to a definite conclusion that the pump house has been constructed over Plot Nos. 52/1488 and 53. Since the Plaintiff has failed to prove the construction of the pump house over Plot No. 52/ 1488, she is not entitled to get any compensation, as claimed, in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. On the aforesaid findings, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit.
6. Appellant-Plaintiff has preferred this appeal. In the suit, she has specifically stated the Plot No. 52/1488 belonged to her. The Defendant constructed the pump house over her plot without any authority. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the retired Engineer, who was examined in the suit on behalf of the Defendants as D.W.1, has admitted that on demarcation it was found that the pump house was constructed on the disputed land which belongs to the Plaintiff and such admission of the Defendant witness coupled with the Amin Report in Demarcation Case No. 99/93 which was marked as Ext. 9 clearly shows that the pump house constructed on the Plaintiff''s land and the Court below erred in law in ignoring the said material on record and dismissed the suit which needs to be reversed and the Plaintiff''s suit should be decreed.
7. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Defendants, on the other hand, submits that the order passed by the trial Court is a reasonable order. As such, the same need not be interfered with.
8. Considering the above submissions of the parties and after going through the record, it reveals that the pump house was constructed over the Plaintiff''s land. D.W.1 was working as Asst. Engineer, PHD (II), Mahanadi Bihar, Cuttack when the proposal was made to install a water pump to supply water to Circle Jail and E.S.I. Hospital, Choudwar. He has specifically stated that on 20.5.1994 N.C. Patra, J.E. was present on behalf of the department for demarcation pursuant to letter No. 93/94 issued vide Exts.3 to 6 by his office. On such demarcation, it was found that the pump was installed within the boundary of Plot No. 52/1488. In view of such admission of D.W.1, it is clear that the pump house was constructed within the boundary of Plot No. 52/1488 which belongs to the Plaintiff. The D.W.1 is a Government servant who was working in the P.H. Department at the relevant time when the pump house was constructed. Admission by Government officers binds the Government, as the officer acts in discharge of his duty within the limits of his authority. D.W.1 in the present case has not exceeded his authority. An admission by a responsible officer that certain property belongs to the Plaintiff is sufficient to shift the burden of proving that the property belongs to the party making admission. In the present case, Defendants have not proved that the disputed property belongs to them. The Respondents-Defendants have encroached upon a portion of the land of the Plaintiff.
9. Therefore, this Court directed the Tahasildar, Choudwar to verify from the spot and after due enquiry file a report before this Court whether any portion of the Plaintiff''s land has been encroached while constructing the pump house keeping in view the provision of Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In pursuance of the said direction, Respondent-Defendant No. 1 enquired the matter by deputing the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar and Asst. Engineer, Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Sub-Division, Charbatia and submitted a report along with the sketch map to this Court on joint verification which reveals that the pump house is constructed over an area of Ac.0.12 decimals of Plot No. 52/1488 under Khata No. 71 on the boundary wall over Ac.0.50 decimals of Plot No. 53 under Khata No. 449 of village Chasapada, P.S. Choudwar. From the said report, it is clear that the Plaintiff''s land measuring an area of Ac.0.12 decimals in Plot No. 52/1488 under Khata No. 71 has been encroached by the Defendants while constructing the pump house. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the said encroachment. Since the pump house has been constructed to supply water to Circle Jail and ESI Hospital, Choudwar which is for a public purpose, the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act.
10. Taking into consideration the above facts, this Court determines the compensation at Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) for Ac.0.12 decimals of land. The Plaintiff is also entitled to additional market value, solatium and for severance of rest of the land in view of the above encroachment. Accordingly, this Court determines the total compensation at a consolidated sum of Rs.55,000/- (rupees fifty five thousand) and the Plaintiff is also entitled to interest as per the Land Acquisition Act from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 1.7.1996.
11. With the above observations, the Plaintiff''s suit is decreed. Judgment and decree dated 5th of September, 2001 and 15th September, 2001 respectively passed by the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in Title Suit No. 297 of 1996 is set aside.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
