Judgment:
M. Papanna, J.
1. State of Orissa brought this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'The Act'). The appellant challenged judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L. A. Case No.'72 of 1999'awarding a sum of Rs. 1,02.48 1.92 P. for acquired land of respondent. Rs. 3000/- for acquired trees standing thereon and Rs. 5000/- for changing of residence.
2. Facts leading to the present appeal are like this -
The State Government acquired land of the respondent to the extent of Ac. 5.12 decimals in Jambunal mouza for construction of Rengali Dam Project. In this connection there was notification under Section 4(1) of the Act being published in Orissa Gazette vide EOG No. 1030 dated 18.7.1982. The State fixed the market value of the acquired land at. Rs. 22,160.50 P. The Claimant challenged the award of compensation as fixed by the Government before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deogarh.
3. The Claimant on receipt of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act claimed compensation basing on the annual net yield multiplied by twenty. According to him. the acquired land is fertile for which the compensation fixed by the State Government is quite inadequate. He claimed compensation of Rs. 35,000/- per acre basing on the annual yield multiplied by twenty. He pleaded that he was growing paddy crops and thereafter Mung on the land. He was getting 20 quintals of paddy and four quintals of Mung per acre. The acquired trees standing on the land in question have also been under valued. On these grounds he claimed higher compensation from the State Government.
4. The Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the State and filed written statement of defence stating that the Claimant is not entitled to compensation as demanded by him.
5. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh adjudicated the claim application basing on the annual yield of the land in question and ultimately awarded compensation of Rs. 1,02,481.92 P. for acquired land, Rs. 3000/- for acquired trees and Rs. 5000/- for changing of residence. The State challenged this award in the present appeal.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate challenged the judgment on several grounds. His main contention is that the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) is exorbitantly high. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
7. On perusal of the impugned judgment along with evidence adduced on behalf of the Claimant, I am satisfied that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has taken into account the annual yield of the land in question while determining its value for the purpose of awarding compensation. By applying correct principle to the facts of this case he came to hold that the market value of Rs. 22,160/- for the acquired land as fixed by the Government is too inadequate. In fact, the land acquired by the State is Class-I variety of land backed by irrigation facilities from D.P. Canal. Paddy and Mung were produced by the Claimant from the land in question. The O.P. did not adduce any rebuttal evidence to the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant. On the whole, no illegality has been committed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in determining the land value and awarding compensation for acquisition of the land with standing trees thereon, for which 1 am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
8. In the result, the impugned judgment is confirmed. The appeal fails being devoid of any merit. It is dismissed accordingly. No costs.