According to section 27(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, land looser not seeking compensation enhancement is entitled to similar treatment in the acquisition compensation: Orissa High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK LAA NO.42 OF 2012 In the matter of an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act assailing the judgment dated 19.05.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Bhawanipatna in L.A.R. No.709. Dukhi Shyam Routthrough his L.Rs.) :: VERSUS :: Special Land Acquisition Officer Lanjigarh Road Junagarh Appellants Rail Link Project & Others : Respondents. Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by Hybrid ArrangementMode: For Appellants M s.Sidhartha Das P.R. Singh and S.K. Mishra Advocates For Respondent : M s. Miss Kalpana Pattnaik & D. Rath AdvocatesTHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing ::18.11.2021 :: Date of Judgment.23.11.2021 The Appellants by filing this Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Acthave assailed the judgment award dated 19.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Bhawanipatna in L.A.R. No.709 in the matter of A reference under section 18 of the 2 = L.A. Acthas been acquired by the Respondents for the purpose of Lanjigarh Road Junagarh Rail Link project. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.1 00 053 for the acquired lands. The Appellants having received the said assessed compensation under protest filed a petition seeking enhancement of the compensation claiming therein that the market value of the land as taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of assessment of the compensation is too low. They claimed that the market value of the land acquired would be about Rs.3 to 4 lakhs per acre. They further claimed that for the severance of the land owned by them in a patch in view of the acquisition they are also entitled to sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs which has not been taken into account. In view of the demand raised by the Appellants Claimants) claiming higher compensation for their acquired land the matter stood referred to the Referral Court under section 18 of the L.A Act for determination of just and proper consideration for said acquired land. The above claim of the Appellants was resistd 3 = by the Respondents before the Referral Court. The Appellants examined three witnesses. They have also proved certain documents of which important are the two orders passed by the same Referral Court on 11.12.1992 in MJC No. 31 of 1992 and the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 32 of 1992. The Respondents on the other hand have examined one witness while proving the document i.e. the work sheet of that village Dunguriguda. The Referral Court going to determine the just and proper compensation for the acquired land on the date of publication under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act i.e. dated 17.8.1994 has finally determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.50 000 per acre. Accordingly the Respondents have been directed to pay the compensation for the acquired land computing the same at the said rate for the total extent of land acquired with all other statutory benefits as available. Learned counsel for the Appellantsat the outset inviting the attention of the court to the certified of the judgment award dated 31.7.2010 passed by the said Referral Court in MJC No. 197 of 1997 as also the letter dated 9.9.2014 with the enclosure issued by the Respondent No. 1 in response to the letter of the Appellantsindicating therein that the compensation for the acquired land involved in MJC No. 197 of 1997 and as has been determined by the Referral Court has already been paid to those claimants therein pointed that the 4 = award as has been passed in the said case has been fully satisfied. It may be stated here that said documents being filed in Court have been taken on record. Placing reliance of the above judgment award passed by the Referral Court prior to the passing of the judgment award which has been impugned in this Appeal and in view of the payment of the said compensation amount he contended that when the land involved in the present proceeding had been acquired under the same notification dated 17.8.1994 and as also those are of same kissam and being similarly situated located the Appellants Claimants) are entitled at the minimum to the compensation in consonance with the said determination of the compensation in MJC No. 1997. Inviting the attention to the factual settings of the present case as well as the one involved in MJC No. 1997 as well as concerning the case he submitted that when in that case those claimants have been paid with compensation being assessed taking the market value of the land at Rs.2 02 400 per acre for the Bahal kisam of land and Rs.96 000 per acre for the other kisams of lands i.e. Berna Mala Atta and Kheta Adi the same market value has to be taken as the guide for determination of the compensation of the lands for these Appellants involved in the present proceeding. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 without disputing 5 = the determination of the compensation for the land involved in MJC No. 197 of 1997 and the factum of payment of the said compensation to the Appellants claimants therein as it reveals from the certified copy of judgment award contended that the said market value as has been determined by the Referral Court in that case has been on the basis of the evidence available on record therein and that it is not permissible to determine the market value of the acquired lands of the present Appellants taking that as the basis. Keeping in view the submission made I have carefully gone through the judgment award dated 19.5.2012 which has been impugned in the present Appeal as well as the judgment award passed in MJC No. 197 of 1997 disposed of on 31.7.2010. It reveals that the land ad measuring Ac.5.31 decimals of Bahal Berena Mala Atta and Kheta Adi kissam under eight plots in one khata of Mouza Dunguriguda owned by the Appellants have been acquired by notification No. 36617 R dated 17.8.1994. The reference under section 18 of the L.A. Act numbered as MJC No. 1997 was concerning the land measuring Ac.05.75 decimals under nine plots in one khata of that very Mouza Duguriguda. These lands had also been acquired pursuant to the notification No. 36617 R dated 17.8.1994 and for the same purpose of construction of Lanjigarh road Junagarh Rail Link project. In that case the Referral Court has determined the market value of Ac.3.20 decimals of Bahal kisam of land at Rs.2 02 400 6 = per acre and other kisams i.e. Berna Mala Atta Kheta Adi at Rs.96 000 per acre. The undisputed position thus emerges that almost same extent of lands of same kisams as involved in the present reference were also the subject matter in the reference answered on 31.7.2001 in MJC No. 197 of 1997. The documents reveal that the judgment award passed in MJC No. 197 of 1997 has been further challenged by this Respondent No. 2 and the same has been fully satisfied by way of payment of the compensation in terms of the determination made in the said reference to the claimants therein. Here is a case where the large chunk of land of different kisams owned by the Appellants have been acquired and thereby it is well inferable that the Appellantsby such acquisition has not only lost their lands but also have been deprived of that source of income for all times to come in future. When other land owners of the village whose lands have been acquired for the same purpose under the same notification have been paid with the compensation at the enhanced rate as aforestated it does not stand to reason as to why the same standard would not be applied for determining the compensation towards the lands of the Appellants which have been acquired and they be not paid accordingly. In fact the statement governing the field in order to remove the discriminatory treatment to the land loosers for the acquisition of the land under one notification is contained in the provision of 7 = section 27(A) of the LA Act that even a land looser who has not sought for the reference for enhancement of compensation would be entitled to get similar treatment in the assessment of the compensation for the acquisition of his land and payment thereof if the compensation is determined at a higher rate in a reference made at the instance of another land looser whose lands have been acquired under the same notification in case he moves the Competent Authority within thirty days of passing of the award in the reference provided of course the land are of same quality and attached with same benefits etc. The Appellantssince are pursuing the matter of enhancement of compensation by carrying Appeal challenging the judgment award stating that the determination of market value has been made on a lower side and compensation awarded is thus liable to be enhanced this Court finds all the reasons to extent the same benefit to the present the matter of determination of compensation for their acquired land and payment thereof in consonance with the determination of the compensation as has been made in MJC No. 197 of 1997 and paid to the claimants therein. In that view of the matter this Court holds that the Appellants are entitled to get the compensation for Bahal kisam of land at Rs. 2 02 400 per acre and rest kisams of lands at the rate of Rs. 96 000 per acre. The Compensation for the extent of acquired land being computed in the aforesaid rate be 8 = paid to the Appellantswith all other statutory benefits as available within four months hence failing which the same would carry further interest @ 9% per annum till payment. Accordingly the Appeal stands disposed of. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances it is felt necessary in the interest of justice to direct the Referral Court that upon deposit of the amount as aforesaid by the Respondents 80% of the same would be kept in unecumberable and non pledgeable long term Fixed Deposit of ten years at the minimum in the name of the Appellants upon due apportionment amongst them in accordance with their shares in any Nationalized Bank with monthly interest payable to them through their Savings Bank Accounts and the rest 20% shall be paid to the Respondents claimants) by keeping the same in deposit in their Savings Bank Accounts in the said Bank where the Fixed deposit would be kept D. Dash J. 

Summary: It was well deducible that the Appellants (Claimants) by such acquisition had not only lost their lands but was deprived of that source of income for all times to come in future. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Dash in the matter of Dukhi Shyam Rout Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [LAA NO.42 OF 2012].  The facts of the case were associated with an appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act condemning the judgment passed by the Single Judge on 19.05.2012. The original claimant of the said case died during proceedings before the Referring Court and his legal representatives filed the instant appeal and hereinafter they are referred to as the Appellants. The respondents for the purpose of the Lanjigarh Road Junagarh Rail Link project acquired the land of Mouza Dunguriguda owned by the appellant. The land officer awarded compensation for the acquired land. Upon receiving the compensation, the appellants under protest filed a petition and sought an increase of compensation as the compensation of the land compared to its market value was too low. The Referral Court accordingly directed the respondents to pay the compensation as per the market value for the acquired land. It was also stated that the Appellants were entitled at the minimum to the compensation in consonance with the said determination of the compensation. Counsel for the respondents stated that the compensation was determined on the basis of the evidence available on record and that it was not permissible to determine the market value of the acquired lands of the present Appellants.   The Hon’ble Court considering all the submissions and facts stated that “Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is felt necessary in the interest of justice to direct the Referral Court that upon deposit of the amount as aforesaid by the Respondents; 80% of the same would be kept in unecumberable and non-pledgeable long term Fixed Deposit of ten years at the minimum in the name of the Appellants (Claimants) upon due apportionment amongst them in accordance with their shares in any Nationalized Bank with monthly interest payable to them through their Savings Bank Accounts and the rest 20% shall be paid to the Respondents (claimants) by keeping the same in deposit in their Savings Bank Accounts in the said Bank where the Fixed deposit would be kept.” Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of.