0

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

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. 

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat