L.A. Misc. Case no.

95 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAKHYANAGAR, DIST.­ DHENKANAL
Present:

Smt. Sradhanjali Ray, LL.B.,

Senior Civil Judge,
Kamakhyanagar, Dhenkanal
(J.O. Code­OD­0528)

Dated this the 10th day of November, 2023

LA Misc. Case No.95 of 2016

Damayanti Samal, aged about 60 years,

W/o­Antaryami Samal, of village­Nuapani,
P.O­Baligorada, P.S.­Kamakhyanagar,
Dist­Dhenkanal
............Petitioner
­Versus­
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul­Duburi­
Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project,
At/P.O./P.S./Dist.­ Dhenkanal

2. Ministry of Railway, Union of India,

Represented by Chief Engineer (Construction)­II,
East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, Dist­Khurda

3. Angul Sukinda Railway Limited, a company

incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, having its office at plot
no.7622/4706, Press Chhak, Gajapati Nagar,
Bhubaneswar 751005, Dist­Khurda.
........Opposite Parties

Appearance

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri D.G.Behera,

and Associates, Advocates,
Kamakhyanagar.
Page No.1 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
Counsel for the opp. party :Sri Hrushikesh Mallik,
No.1 Ld. A.G.P., Kamakhyanagar

Counsel for the opp. party :Sri Matru Prasad Nanda,

No.2 Ld. A.S.G.C., Dhenkanal

Counsel for the opp. party :Sri Susanta Kumar Dash,

No.3 and Associates, Advocates,
Cuttack

Date of conclusion of argument :31.10.2023

Date of pronouncement of order :10.11.2023

Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Final Order
In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa
in W.P.(C) No.5086 of 2018 vide Order dated 04.01.2023
with a direction to this Court for de novo adjudication of the
L.A. Misc. Case No.95/2016.

2. This is a reference U/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (hereinafter shall be termed as “Act” only for brevity)
made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul­Duburi­
Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal on the
ground of objection by the petitioner in protest against the
amount of compensation awarded in her favour.

3. The origin of the reference is that in pursuance with

the Notification U/s 4(1) of the Act bearing no.25582 dated
13.06.2011 published in the Odisha Gazette no.1417 dated
23.06.2011, the lands of the petitioner situated at mouza
Nuapani, P.S. Kamakhyanagar, Dist.­Dhenkanal bearing Khata
no.98/31, an area of Ac.0.0.02 decs from plot no.1149,
Ac.0.08 decs from plot no.1155, Ac.0.47 decs from plot

Page No.2 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
no.1457, Ac.0.05 decs from plot no.1593, Ac.0.01 dec from
plot no.1596, Ac.0.02 decs from plot no.1681 and Ac.0.02
decs from plot no.1682, all of kissam Sarada­I, were acquired
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul­Duburi­
Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal. Against
such acquisition an amount of Rs.92,721/­ (ninety two
thousand thousand seven hundred and twenty one) was
awarded in favour of the petitioner, where the market value
of the acquired lands was fixed at Rs.85,000/­ per acre. The
awarded amount was received by the petitioner on protest.
As per the petitioner, at the time of computation of award,
the acquired land has been greatly undervalued as the market
price of the same should have been held to be not less than
Rs.1,00,000/­ per gunth. Thus, the petitioner challenged the
compensation on the ground of inadequacy. As per the
petitioner the lands in close vicinity of the acquired land are
being sold at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/­ per gunth. Thus, it is
his contention that same fact has been over looked by the
opp.parties. Moreover, as per the petitioner, even though the
acquired lands have been recorded as agricultural lands in
the settlement record, but due to situational advantage and
population of the locality, same are fit for homestead
purpose. Accordingly, it has been categorically pleaded by
the petitioner that village Nuapani is a developed village
having all facilities being adjacent to the N.H. 53, which runs
from Jajpur to Talcher. Even as per his averment, the acquired
lands situate at a distance of about 100 mtrs from the said

Page No.3 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
N.H. Moreover, as per the petitioner village Nuapani also
situates at a distance of 5 kms from Kamakhyanagar Sub­
Divisional Headquarter and at a distance of 2 kms from
Kamakhyanagar NAC area. On such grounds, the petitioner
has pleaded about higher compensation against acquisition of
her land. Besides this, the petitioner has also claimed
compensation on the ground of severance as post acquisition,
small portions of the acquired plots have been left out,
making such portions unutilized.
4. Besides the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e.,
opposite party no.1, the Ministry of Railway represented by
the Chief Engineer Construction­II i.e., opp.party no.2 has
also entered his appearance to contest the case. Even
subsequently the Company i.e., Angul­Sukinda Railway Ltd.
was given an opportunity of hearing in this reference by the
Hon’ble High Court of Orissa for which the Company i.e.,
Angul­Sukinda Railway Ltd. appeared and contested as
opposite party no.3. Though neither the learned A.G.P
appearing for opposite party no.1 nor learned counsel for the
opposite party nos.2 and 3 have filed any written objection,
but they raised objection regarding such claim of the
petitioners on the ground that the amount awarded as
compensation in favour of the petitioner is justified and
adequate.

5. Basing on the rival submissions, the sole point for

determination is whether the amount awarded in favour of

Page No.4 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
the petitioner towards acquisition of her lands situated at
mouza Nuapani bearing Khata no.98/31, plot
nos.1149,1155,1457,1593,1596,1681 and 1682 with an area
of Ac.0.67 decs in total of kissam Sarada­I are inadequate due
to determination of lessor market price of the lands
warranting interference of this Court and if yes, to what
extent it should be enhanced?

6. During de novo trial, neither the petitioner nor the

opposite parties have examined any witness. Even, the
“ground of valuation” depicting the calculation has already
been marked as Ext.A from the side of the opposite party
no.1. Similarly, the Certified copy of the final order dated
01.11.2022 in L.A. Misc. Case No.129/2021 marked as Ext.B
and the Village Map marked as Ext.C from the side of the
opposite party no.3.

7. During course of argument, it is humbly submitted by

the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the Land
Acquisition Officer, Angul­Duburi­Sukinda New B.G. Rail Link
Project, Dhenkanal after taking into consideration of sales
statistics/bench mark valuation report of the acquired village
land, fixed the compensation, but the claimant failed to
controvert such assessment of market value of the L.A.O after
passing the award. He submitted that the valuation relating
to Registered Sale in the R.S.D. an area of Ac.0.060 dec. was
transacted at a consideration amount of Rs.5000/­, taking
into the said transaction the sold out land of the acquired
village valued at Rs.83,333/ per acre not Rs.8,33,333/­ per
Page No.5 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
acre. It is further submitted that the acquired village Nuapani
situates at about 10 Kms. away from Kamakhyanagar
intervene by village Kantaripat. It is also submitted that the
Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at
Rs.85,000/­ per acre basing on the bench mark valuation
report as prepared by the different dignitaries of District
Valuation Committee in compliance to the provisions of law.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3
during his argument submitted that the earlier Judgement
passed by this Court in L.A. Misc. Case No.129/2021 dated
01.11.2022, pertaining to acquisition of the land of same
nature/class/kissam, situated in the adjacent village, which
were acquired under the very same Notification under
Section 4 (1) of the Act marked as Ext.B and the map
showing the position of those two villages as adjacent to each
other marked as Ext.C, produced by the Company liable to
pay the amount of compensation may be considered for the
purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired
land. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that when the sale statistics are
available in the very acquired village Nuapani the documents,
as relied on by O.P. No.3 are not suitable to this case. As such,
he submitted that to determine the market price of the
acquired land @ Rs.8,33,333/­ per acre besides the statutory
benefits for the acquired land including the left out small
patches which is just and proper.

However, countermanding the same, the ground of

Page No.6 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
valuation vide Ext.A which reveals that the valuation relating
to the R.S.D. No.537 dated 20.04.2010, an area of Ac.0.060
decs was transacted at a consideration amount of Rs.5000/­
but the L.A. Authority has wrongly calculated the said
transaction of the sold out land of the acquired village valued
at Rs.8,33,333/­ per acre instead of Rs.83,333/­. Moreover,
the opposite party no.3 has exhibited the Judgement dated
01.11.2022 in L.A. Misc. Case No.129 of 2021 of mouza
Kantaripat vide Ext.B, which reveals that the Notification
number is different with the acquired mouza Nuapani.
Considering all such aspects including future potentiality of
the acquired land, there should be escalation of the market
price of the land during such intervening period. Admittedly,
the other sale instance of mouza Nuapani for Sarada kissam
land have been obtained preceding three years of the
notification whereas the lands were acquired as per
Notification of the year 2011. Now, as far as rate of
Escalation is concerned, law to that effect is well settled that
preliminarily the increase in land price depends on four
factors viz., situation of the land, nature of development in
surrounding area, availability of land for development in the
area and demand for land in the area. Now in this instant
case, it has been specifically pleaded by the petitioner that
the acquired plots are nearer to N.H.53. Even, as per the
pleading of the petitioner, due to increase of population and
series of land most of the persons have started residing near
the acquired land by constructing their residential houses and

Page No.7 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
a colony has been developed surrounding the acquired land.
Moreover, there are some government and non­government
institutions like School and some small scale industries are
also there surrounding the acquired area. As such, in my
opinion the growth at the rate of 30% per annum sounds
justifiable. The Authority relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner reported in Supreme Court of India
(Lalchand ­vrs.­Union of India and others) on 12 August,
2009 Para 36(1), Supreme Court of India ( Sri Rani M.
Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur ­Vrs.­
The Collector of Madras) M.L.J (SC) Page 45, 114 (2012)
CLT 696 (SC) (Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Fandkot
and others ­Vrs.­ Sate of Punjab and others and 1989 (I)
OLR 408 ( Land Acquisition Collector, Cuttack ­Vrs.­ Ratha
Sahu) are not application in the present facts and
circumstances. Likewise, The Authority relied upon by the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 reported in AIR
2006 (SC) 447 ( Union of India ­Vrs.­ Harinder Pal Singh
and Ors.) and AIR 2017 (SC) 1518 (New Okala Industrial
Development Authority ­ Vrs.­ Harchand) are not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Now, if
the market value of the land was Rs.85,000/­ per acre in the
year 2008, with 30% annual growth that becomes
Rs.1,86,745/­ per acre in the year 2011 i.e., in the year of
acquisition. Thus, in my opinion, the market value of the land
being rounded of to the nearby figure should be fixed at
Rs.2,00,000/­ per acre. Hence, this order.

Page No.8 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
ORDER
The reference U/s 18 of the Act is answered with
observation that the market price, as determined by Special
Land Acquisition Officer for award of compensation against
the acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioner is not
adequate and the market price of that lands should have been
Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two Lakhs) instead of Rs. 85,000/­
per acre as was determined. As such the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Angul­Duburi­Sukinda Road New B.G.
Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal is directed to redetermine the
compensation with that enhanced market price of that lands
along with other benefits for which the petitioner being the
person interested is entitled as per the Statute, which
includes the solatium. The differential amount shall be paid
to the petitioner without inordinate delay. The petitioner is
also entitled to get an interest on that differential amount at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the
possession of the lands were taken, for the first year of
possession and then at the rate of 15% till the date of
payment of such excess amount as per sec 28 of the Act. The
cost of the proceeding is also to be awarded in favour of the
petitioner by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per
reasonable scale apropos to Sec. 27 of the Act.

Senior Civil Judge

Kamakhyanagar
10.11.2023

Page No.9 of 10
 L.A. Misc. Case no.95 of 2016
The order is dictated and corrected by me and the same
is delivered under my seal and signature and pronounced in
the Open Court on this the 10th day of November, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge

Kamakhyanagar
10.11.2023

List of witnesses from the side of petitioner

None

List of witnesses from the side of opposite parties

None
List of Exhibits for the petitioner
Nil
List of Exhibits for the opposite party no.1
Ext.A :Grounds of valuation
List of Exhibits for the opposite party no.2
Nil
List of Exhibits for the opposite party no.3
Ext.B :Certified copy of the final order dated
01.11.2022 in L.A. Misc. Case No.129/2021
Ext.C :Village Map

Senior Civil Judge

Kamakhyanagar
10.11.2023

Page No.10 of 10