TMI Blog1975 (9) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly get compensation for the acquired raiyati lands at 16 years net yield of the lands and it is left to the L. A. O. to assess the net yield in accordance with the results of crop cutting experiments recorded in the Hamid Settlement report. The objector would, besides, get additional 15 per cent. compensation over the compensation to be fixed by the aforesaid method by the L. A. O. The objector should also receive interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of dispossession. The State of Orissa came up in appeal in M. A. No. 1 of 1964 to the High Court and the award was affirmed on 16-2-1970. On 18-11-70/26-3-71 petitioner No. 2, a son of deceased Ramadhin, was paid the balance amount of ₹ 1,14,278.06 as the objector was ill. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of paddy during the relevant period ? (2) Whether any theory of estoppel applies against the petitioners ? 4. It is not disputed before us now that during the relevant period the price of paddy at which the petitioners would have been given compensation was ₹ 7,27 per maund. Mr. Mohapatra claimed at the higher rate of ₹ 7.94 alleging that on previous occasions not only the Land Acquisition Officer but also the Arbitrator and the High Court granted compensation at the same rate., He brought to our notice some of such decisions. We are satisfied that on earlier occasions compensation was granted at the rate of ₹ 7.94 per maund of paddy. These decisions, however, are not binding on us since the matter was not argue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.94 per maund. We overrule this objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel. 6. The learned Arbitrator said that the award had become final in the year 1963. In fact it was not final. The award clearly laid down the principles and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to compute the compensation. It is only after the compensation was calculated that the petitioners could know the amount to which they were entitled. It was the duty of the arbitrator when complaint was made to him to see whether the calculation made was correct or not. He retained jurisdiction to determine correct calculation. 7. In the result, the writ application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of ₹ 200/- (two hundred). The petitioners would be granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
