Jharkhand High Court
Md. Ali Imam & Ors vs Noorun Nisha & Ors on 10 November, 2008
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: Ramesh Kumar Merathia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 105 of 2008 to
First Appeal No. 137 of 2008.
---
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
Koyla Nagar, Koyla Bhawan,
P.S. & District Dhanbad ... ... ... ...Appellant in all the cases
Versus
1. Ramlal Mahto and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 105 of 2008
2. Banshi Modad and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 106 of 2008
3. Narayan Ojha and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 107 of 2008
4. Narayan Prasad Ojha and others... Respondent in F.A. No. 108 of 2008
5. Nakul Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 109 of 2008
6. Ramlal Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 110 of 2008
7. Ramlal Mahto and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 111 of 2008
8. Shankar Bouri and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 112 of 2008
9. Fagu Bouri and others ... ... Respondent in F.A. No. 113 of 2008
10.Hiru Mahato and another ... Respondent in F.A. No. 114 of 2008
11.Sufal Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 115 of 2008
12.Dilip Kumar Mahato and others... Respondent in F.A. No. 116 of 2008
13.Bhuwan Modak and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 117 of 2008
14.Ramlal Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 118 of 2008
15.Madan Modak and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 119 of 2008
16.Pagal Bouri and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 120 of 2008
17.Khety Modak and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 121 of 2008
18.Madan Modak and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 122 of 2008
19.Ramlal Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 123 of 2008
20.Chandi Charan Ojha and others... Respondent in F.A. No. 124 of 2008
21.Dilip Kumar Mahato and others... Respondent in F.A. No. 125 of 2008
22.Nakul Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 126 of 2008
23.Ramlal Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 127 of 2008
24.Hiru Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 128 of 2008
25.Badal Modak and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 129 of 2008
26.Radhika Mairani and another... Respondent in F.A. No. 130 of 2008
27.Yudhishthir Pandey and others... Respondent in F.A. No. 131 of 2008
28. Ramlal Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 132 of 2008
29.Smt. Radhika Mairani & another...Respondent in F.A. No. 133 of 2008
30.Ramlal Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 134 of 2008
31.Mishri Lal Sharma and others... Respondent in F.A. No. 135 of 2008
32.Raju Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 136 of 2008
33.Raju Mahato and others ... Respondent in F.A. No. 137 of 2008
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta Advocate.
For the State : Mr. M. S. Akhtar, S.C. II.
For the Respondents : Mr. R. K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.
---
-2-
12. 10.11.2008. Heard Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. M. S. Akhtar appearing for the State and Mr. R. K. Mukhopadhyay for the respondents in all the cases.
2. This batch of appeals arises out of the common judgment dated 21.3.1998 (award signed on 4.4.1998) passed by learned Land Acquisition Judge (for short "L.A. Judge"), Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Cases Nos. 61 of 1990 to 94 of 1990 (total 33 cases).
3. Mr. Mehta submitted that the award of compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 350/- per decimal which comes to Rs. 35000/- per acre is bad, as the land acquired were of different types. He further submitted that the documents relied by the appellant (Ext. A-1 & A-2) were not considered by the learned L.A. Judge.
4. Mr. Akhtar, appearing for the State supported Mr. Mehta and referring to the judgment reported in the case of Kanta Devi and others vs. State of Haryana 2008 AIR SCW 5241, submitted that in any event, the development charges are required to be deducted from the compensation.
5. The facts in short are that about 159.32 ½ acres of land situated in Mouza Aralgaria, P.S. Kendua, District- Dhanbad was acquired by the State of Bihar for the appellant Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (B.C.C.L. for short) vide L. A. Case No. 35/1983-84 under the notification No. 1LA/Dhan/58/83-84-277 (R) dated 1.8.1983 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The possession of the acquired lands was given to B.C.C.L. on 30.3.1984. The awardees received compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest on the ground that the same was inadequate.
6. The case of the claimants was that the compensation was very low and it should have been fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. The acquired lands were situated within industrial area, by the side of the colliery quarters and bungalows having the facility of road, water, electricity, college, hospital and market complexes etc., and therefore, the valuation should not have been fixed as agricultural land and there should be uniform rate for all the cases.
7. On the other hand, the State of Bihar and B.C.C.L. disputed the claims of the awardees on the ground that valuation of the acquired land 3. was fixed on the basis of prevalent market rate collected from the Dhanbad Registration Office, from the sale deeds executed within two years prior to the issuance of notification and as such, the compensation was adequate.
8. Thus, the issue before the trial court was whether the compensation awarded by the State Government was inadequate and improper and if so what should be the proper quantum of compensation.
9. Eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants who said that the lands were situated in beside Chas-Dhanbad main road, where several projects of B.C.C.L. were going on and the acquired lands are within the industrial area having the facility of water, electricity etc. The parties also relied on certain documents. The learned L.A. Judge found that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the valuation of the acquired land on the basis of Gora I land shown at serial no. 9 of the rate report (Ext C)which was at the rate of Rs. 16,667/- per acre as per the sale deed executed on 26.8.1982; but the sale deed at serial no. 3 which are at the rate of Rs. 1,11,250/- per acre relating to a land purchased by B.C.C.L. itself on 19.2.1981 and the rate shown at serial no. 10 which was Rs. 40,000/-per acre and the rate shown at serial no. 16 at the rate of Rs. 27,727/-per acre were not considered without assigning any reason or disbelieving the same, and therefore, the learned L.A. Judge held that average rate should have been fixed on the basis of the sales shown in the rate report and the fixation of price of land solely on the basis of sale price mentioned at serial no. 9 only was quite arbitrary and improper. Exhibit 2 was a sale deed dated 16.11.1981 with regard to Gora II land of the same village which was sold at Rs. 250/- per decimal i.e., Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The sale deed dated 1.7.1983 shown that Biad land was sold at the rate of Rs. 600/- per Katha which comes to about Rs. 400/- per decimal. The judgment of Land Reference Case No. 10 to 30/90 was also produced as Ext. 1. The L.A. Judge found that in the said case the L.A. Judge relied on the aforesaid deeds as well as Gokhlay Report and fixed the rate of Gora I land at Rs. 40,000/-; the rate of Bahal land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 80,000/-; rate of Kanali land at Rs. 50,000/-; Baid land at the rate of Rs. 26,666/-; Gora II land at the rate of Rs. 13,333/-; Gora III land at the rate of Rs. 3,333/-; and Parti land at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per acre. However, the 4. L.A. Judge found force in the submission of the awardees that the acquired land was situated within the industrial area, where several B.C.C.L. projects were going on, and therefore, the acquired lands have similar potentialities, and therefore, the valuation of all lands should be fixed at the same rate. It also took into consideration that the prices of land within B.C.C.L. area were increasing substantially due to development of industries and construction of quarters and bungalows of B.C.C.L. After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it found that in all fairness, modest and the average valuation of the acquired lands should not be less than Rs. 250/- per decimal i.e., Rs. 25,000/- per acre.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, the argument of Mr. Mehta that an average flat rate should not have been fixed cannot be accepted. The L.A. Judge, has rightly held that an average flat rate should be fixed for the lands acquired, as they were of similar potentialities and valuation. Further in view of the rate report (Ext. C) relied by the State and B.C.C.L., it was not necessary to consider Ext. A-1 and A-2 separately. Ext. A-1 is a sale deed dated 17.2.1981 by which one acre of land was sold for Rs. 1,000/-only and Ext. A-2 is a sale deed executed on 26.8.1982 for 6 decimals of land sold for Rs. 1,000/- only which comes to Rs. 16,667/- per acre. But, it has not been brought on the record that the lands sold under the said Exts. A-1 and A-2 had similar potentialities with the lands in question. In the judgment of Kanta Devi (Supra) the question of deduction towards development charges was considered. In the said case, the lands were acquired for establishment of a new grain market, rest house, staff quarters etc of the Market Committee. In the present case, admittedly the lands were acquired for the mining purpose for which no development of land is required. After considering the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However no costs.
(R.K. Merathia, J.) R.Shekhar Cps 2.