State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ordera.k. parichha, j.1. learned counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of court fee. therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case no. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. learned counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.2. heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the l.c.r. this appeal has been filed by the state against the award passed by learned civil judge (senior division), deogarh in l.a. case no. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under section 18 of the l.a. act. ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of khata nos. 5, 7, 10(n) 19 and 56 of village-nanei under barkote police station belonging to the.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

A.K. Parichha, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536569',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536569',
		(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Orissa Vs Karunakar Sahu Dead After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors - Citation 536569 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536569',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Orissa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. 6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' A.K. Parichha, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.</p><p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.</p><p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.</p><p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.</p><p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.</p><p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.</p><p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.</p><p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.</p><p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.</p><p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(I)OLR294',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536569',
	(int) 1 => 'state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536569/state-orissa-vs-karunakar-lokanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>A.K. Parichha, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/-for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multiplier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A. Act was also justified.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multiplier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/-for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1012; S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and Anr. : [1995]2SCR316 ; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr. : AIR1992SC473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>8. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Property
Court	Orissa High Court
Decided On	Nov-01-2007
Judge	A.K. Parichha, J.
Reported in	2008(I)OLR294
Appellant	State of Orissa
Respondent	Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors.
Cases Referred	Arjuna Sethi v. L.A. Collector Cuttack

State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ors. - Court Judgment