L.A. COLLECTOR Vs. SHRI SATISH KUMAR JATANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common judgment/award was passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore on 15.02.2005 in L.A. Misc. Case No. 112 of 2004 and L.A. Misc. Case No. 113 of 2004. Sri Satish Kumar Jatania was the claimant/objector in L.A. Misc. Case No. 112 of 2004, whereas Nayana Pradhan was the objector in the other case. As against the award under Section 11 @ Rs.10, 000/ - per decimal for the lands acquired on 21.07.2001 under Notification No. 25409, dated 26.05.2001 both the claimants/objectors raised protest on the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Balasore. Thus, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims and ultimately learned Civil Judge passed the impugned common judgment fixing the valuation at Rs.1, 66, 000/ - (one lakh sixty six thousand) per decimal for the entire land acquired for the purpose of Fakir Mohan College under the aforesaid notification. Aggrieved thereby whereas the Land Acquisition Collector has filed L.A. Appeal Nos.42 and 43 of 2005, the Objector in L.A. Misc. Case No. 113 of 2004 has filed L.A. Appeal No. 34 of 2005 and the Objector in the other case has filed Cross Objection in L.A. Appeal No. 42 of 2005. It is needless to state that when the appeals were taken up for hearing, parties agree for analogous hearing and common disposal.

(2.) WHILE challenging the impugned judgment, the L.A. Collector puts forth several contention relating to the entitlement of the Objectors, their questionable title over the acquired land, the conduct by which they are estopped to raise the valuation beyond Rs.5, 000/ - and also the method of calculation by the Civil Judge, which has been termed as faulty by the Appellants. In course of their reply submissions, the Objectors as the Appellants and the applicant in the Cross -Objection defend the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) on the reasons assigned for their entitlement, but they also state that on determination of the prevalent market rate of the acquired land the Civil Judge has granted relaxation to the State and the valuation should be about Rs.2, 50, 000/ -(two lakhs fifty thousand) per decimal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State further argues that the relevant documents produced by the Respondents were not indicating the correct market price and the rate should not have been borrowed from such documents in view of small patches of land with building having been transacted under such documents, marked Exts.1 to 4. We find sufficient force in that argument. It is the trite law that documents of the aforesaid type could not have been taken for assistance for determination of the prevalent market price of the acquired land on the date of acquisition. Nonetheless, we also consider the argument of the Objectors, in as much as they state that in 1995 -96 when there was a proposal for acquisition of the selfsame property for the selfsame purpose, the Additional District Magistrate, Balasore had then assessed the market value per decimal at Rs.1, 50, 000/ - (one lakh fifty thousand). Learned counsel for the State referring to paragraph 13 of the written statement, states that determination of such value by the A.D.M. is vague and frivolous. In other words, the assertion of the Objectors relating to determination of such a value by the A.D.M. is not disputed. At the same time, in course of tendering evidence the State did not adduce any evidence so as to show or suggest that determination of value at that rate by the A.D.M. was vague or frivolous. Under such circumstance, keeping in view the provision in Chapter -7 and particularly the provision in Section 31 of the Evidence Act, we find that the State cannot wriggle out from that indirect admission of the valuation determined by the State.