9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of market value of orchard acquired under Land Acquisition Act 1894. 2. Assessment of compensation payable to appellants for the acquired orchard. 3. Evaluation of evidence presented regarding the value of the orchard. 4. Consideration of statutory allowances under Section 23(2) of the Act. 5. Dispute over costs awarded by the trial court and High Court. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a civil appeal concerning the market value of an orchard acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the construction of Hirakud Dam in Orissa State. The primary issue in question is the compensation payable to the appellants for their acquired lands, specifically focusing on the valuation of the orchard comprising Orange, Mosambi, and Guava trees. The appellants initially claimed compensation of &8377; 7,95,770/-, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded only &8377; 59,494/6/-. Subsequently, the Additional District Judge increased the compensation to &8377; 3,29,480/-, valuing the trees at specific amounts per tree. The High Court modified the decree, setting the compensation at &8377; 1,47,751/7/-, based on a reassessment of the tree values to &8377; 58,566/-, relying on official reports and publications. The judgment addresses the evaluation of evidence presented by the appellants regarding the orchard's value. The High Court found the appellants' claims exaggerated and the supporting witness testimony unreliable. Despite the absence of documentary evidence, the Additional District Judge heavily relied on oral evidence, which the High Court deemed unacceptable. The court excluded additional documents considered post-arguments, emphasizing the importance of allowing rebuttal opportunities for such evidence. Regarding statutory allowances under Section 23(2) of the Act, the High Court's decision to disallow the 15% allowance over the tree values was deemed erroneous. The court failed to recognize that the trees were part of the acquired land, necessitating the statutory allowance. Citing precedents from Madras and Allahabad High Courts, it was established that tree values must be included in the market value of the land for the 15% allowance under Section 23(2). Lastly, the judgment addressed the dispute over costs awarded by the trial court and High Court. The courts had directed parties to bear their own costs, considering the appellants' exaggerated claim and unreliable evidence. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, granting the statutory 15% allowance on the tree values but upheld the costs decision, emphasizing the discretionary nature of cost awards based on the circumstances of the case.
|
