Comparability Must Be Proven — Proximity Alone Not Enough for Land Valuation: Orissa High Court Rejects Enhancement Claim in Land Acquisition Appeal

“Without discharging burden of proof, one cannot claim parity in land value merely by pointing to proximity — evidence of similarity must be adduced.” — Orissa High Court dismissing an appeal filed by landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded for land acquired under the Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project. Justice Murahari Sri Raman upheld the decision of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar, who had earlier fixed compensation at Rs.39,10,000/- per acre, finding no material evidence to justify the claim for parity with a previous award of Rs.56,41,905/- per acre in a nearby case.

“Market value must be established by comparable evidence — not mere proximity”
The appellants had contended that their land — Plot No. 1937, admeasuring 0.22 decimals — was located near plots previously awarded Rs.56,41,905/- per acre in LAA No. 57 of 2015, and thus deserved the same valuation. Relying on that earlier case, they argued for enhanced compensation by presenting a map showing proximity.

However, the Court stressed that: “It is imperfect to accept the argument that the lands should be valued at Rs.56,41,905/- merely because they are located near the lands in LAA No. 57 of 2015… the burden to prove comparability is on the claimant.”
The Court observed that no petition under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed to introduce the judgment in LAA 57/2015 as additional evidence, nor was the map submitted before the Reference Court during trial.

“Kissam classification and RoR still relevant unless rebutted with better evidence” The appellants criticized the use of kissam classification (land type) from the Record-of-Rights (RoR) as the basis for valuation. They contended that their land’s location near a State Highway justified a commercial/homestead valuation.

The Court noted that while development potential is a valid consideration, the absence of contemporaneous sale deeds and lack of credible evidence meant the Reference Court's reliance on existing sale instances from 2009 was justified.
“The Court determined a 30% increase per year from the 2009 sale price and arrived at Rs.39,10,000/- per acre… this was a rational method in the absence of better evidence.”

“Prior judgments not binding unless land similarity proven” Justice Sri Raman reiterated settled law that previous land acquisition judgments are not binding unless land similarity in terms of nature, location, use, and potential is established through admissible evidence. He quoted the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana (2018) 13 SCC 96:
“Equal treatment cannot be given in case of unequals… previous awards are not binding precedents but only pieces of evidence, subject to judicial scrutiny.”

Market Value of Rs.39.10 Lakhs per Acre Sustained, Appeal Dismissed Summarizing the findings, the Court concluded: “The Appellants failed to establish comparability with lands assessed at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre… the judgment of the Reference Court does not warrant interference.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court was confirmed.

Date of Decision: 21 April 2025