Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Limited (Cmd) vs Karma Ganjhu & Others on 12 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 190 of 2015
Central Coalfields Limited (CMD), Darbhanga House, Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
Karma Ganjhu & Others ..... Respondents
WITH
F.A. 192 of 2015
Central Coalfields Limited (CMD), Darbhanga House, Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
Basudeo Ganjhu & Others ..... Respondents
WITH
F.A. 194 of 2015
Central Coalfields Limited (CMD), Darbhanga House, Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
Mohan Ravidas & Others ..... Respondents
WITH
F.A. 195 of 2015
Central Coalfields Limited (CMD), Darbhanga House, Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
Ramdeo Ganjhu & Others ..... Respondents
WITH
F.A. 196 of 2015
Central Coalfields Limited (CMD), Darbhanga House, Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
Rajeshwar Ganjhu & Others ..... Respondents
WITH
F.A. 197 of 2015
Central Coalfields Limited (CMD), Darbhanga House, Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
Foogli Devi & Others ..... Respondents
WITH
F.A. 198 of 2015
Central Coalfields Limited (CMD), Darbhanga House, Ranchi
..... Appellant
Versus
Kameshwar Ganjhu & Others ..... Respondents
---------
2
F.A. No. 190 of 2015
& Analogous Cases
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate.
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate.
Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate.
For the Respondents/Claimants: Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Prabhu Ram, Advocate.
For the Respondents-State : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C. (Mines)-I.
Mr. Diva Kant Roy, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-I
JUDGMENT
Reserved On : 13.12.2023 Pronounced On : 12.03.2024
1. These first appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 28.07.2014 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, L.A., Hazaribagh in separate land reference cases, whereby the said learned Court has allowed the claim of the respondents /claimants and enhanced the rate of compensation, as such, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. This batch of appeals arising out of Land Reference Case Nos. 52/2010 to 57/2010 & 60/2010. All these land reference cases arose out of Land Acquisition Case No. 14/2005-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land under acquisition proceedings were acquired way back in the year 2006 vide Gazette Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under declaration No. 75/Ra. dated 03.02.2006, which was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh against the award prepared by the Collector, Ramgarh upon the application of the raiyati for enhancement of the compensation, but the application for enhancement has been filed by the claimants in the year 2010 i.e. after approximately four years.
3F.A. No. 190 of 2015
& Analogous Cases
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that for the purpose of determining the compensation, the market value of land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 03.02.2006 would be the relevant date while in the instant case, no material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that the market value of land in the year 2006 was more than the rate determined by the authorities under the Act.
5. It is further submitted that the competent authority before preparation of awards, a valuation report was prepared and all necessary precautions were taken in calculating and fixing the value as required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were taken and therefore, no enhancement of compensation was required.
6. It is further submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the Sale Deeds of previous three years i.e. prior to acquisition, were duly considered for calculating the average rate of lands of different categories which were fair, just and proper and the respective rates were duly approved and accordingly the compensation amount had been fixed by preparing awards by Collector. Therefore, the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Courts below are illegal.
7. It is further submitted that different categories of land were acquired pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the learned Court below erred in fixing the compensation amount at an enhanced rate of Rs. 3,238/- decimal ignoring the classification of lands as per the record 4 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases of rights and therefore the impugned judgment is illegal and bad. Moreover, the learned court below ought to have allowed atleast 20% deduction towards development cost in view of the judgment of the Apex Court report in AIR 1997 SC 1791, (2003) 10 SCC 525 as also in the case reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5241.
8. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate that all the development work near the area has taken place at the instance of Central Coalfields Limited, the benefit of which cannot be given to the claimants.
9. It is further submitted that the court below has failed to take into consideration that in the earlier judgment dated 29.09.2010 passed in similar L.R. Case being L.R. Case No. 45/2009 to 51/2009 and 53/2009 to 79/2009 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 06/2005-06 of the same project and decided by the then Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh considering similar set of evidences, the highest rate of Dhan-I land assessed by the Government were found to be just and proper on comparing the documents filed by the applicants therein and flat rates of Rs. 2,403/- decimal was allowed on the date of Notification i.e. 01.08.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for all classes of lands. The cases of the applicants being on the same footing, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the same flat rate and certainly not the rate of Rs. 3,238/- as has been awarded by the learned Court below.
10. On the above ground, the learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned court below 5 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases and fixation of award on the basis of flat rate of Rs. 2403/- as was decided earlier in the similar L.R. Case for the same project and also for deduction of development cost atleast 20% of the awarded amount.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Vithal Roa and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2017) 8 SCC 558; in the case of Land Chand Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789 and in the case of Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2009) 14 SCC
367.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned court below has considered very wisely the material evidence adduced in this case and also has taken note of legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of just and fair determination of compensation amount and arrived at right conclusion. Absolutely, the land in question is considerable area of 15.95 acres of different persons, which is well developed and valuable land, therefore, deduction of development work is not warranted in this case. The purpose of acquisition of the land is mining business for greater benefit to the Company, the land loosers have been deprived of their valuable land, which cannot be fully compensated, if deduction is allowed, as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference by way this appeal, which has no merit and fit to be 6 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases dismissed.
13. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the main question arises for determination in this appeal as to whether enhancement of rate of compensation by the learned court below is justified under law or not?
14. Before delving upon the question in issue, for proper appreciation of the case, it would be profitable to discuss the factual background of the case and the legal principles propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to assessment of compensation in the matter of land acquisition cases.
15. It appears that the land reference cases were referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh against the respective awards prepared by the Collector, Ramgarh on the application made by the applicants for enhancement of the compensation amount against acquisition of their raiyati lands altogether 15.95 acres lands (revised) acquired under the project by the Government for purpose of allotting the same in favour of Central Coalfields Limited in Village Toppa, P.S. - Mandu, Thana No. 126. This process was notified under declaration No. 75/Ra. Dated 03.02.2006 published in Part-II of Bihar Gazette on 01.08.2005.
16. It appears that in support of their claim, the claimants / petitioners / respondents have adduced oral evidence and examined altogether three witnesses namely, Lalit Ram (A.W.-1), Karma Ganjhu (A.W.-2) and Ratho Ganjhu (A.W.-3).
7F.A. No. 190 of 2015
& Analogous Cases
17. Apart from oral evidence, the claimants / petitioners have also relied upon following documentary evidences:-
Ext. 1:- C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh dated 29.09.2010 in L.R. Case No. 45-51/09 to 53-79/09 with regard to acquisition of house in Village - Toppa.
Ext. 1/a:- C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh dated 30.01.2014 in L.R. Case No. 219 to 225/09 with regard to acquisition of house in Village-Toppa.
Ext. 1/b:- C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh dated 30.06.2014 in L.R. Case No. 03/11 to 22/11 & 24/11 to 72/11 with regard to acquisition of land and house in village - Toppa.
Ext. 2:- C.C. of sale deed No. 6071 dtd. 22.12.10 for 08 decimals of land of Village - Toppa for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Ext. 2/a:- C.C. of sale deed No. 12272 dtd. 27.07.2004 for 10½ decimals of land of Village - Topps for Rs. 34,000/-. Ext. 2/b:- C.C. of sale deed No. 14315 dtd. 24.09.2003 for 03 decimals of land of Village - Topps for Rs. 14,000/-. Ext. 3:- C.C. of valuation chart of different nature of lands as well as of houses as approved by the government in the year 2005.
18. It appears that O.P. No. 1 has not examined any witness. O.P. No. 2 has been examined as O.P. No. 1 Ramji Prasad, Survey Officer of C.C.L. Toppa Project.
19. Apart from oral evidence, the opposite parties have relied upon following documentary evidences:-
Ext. A:- Xerox Attested copy of rate report/order sheet of L.A. Case No. 14/2005-2006 of A.D.M. from 15.09.2005 to 12.03.2008 with respect to village Toppa relating to Declaration No. 75/Ra. Dated 03.02.2006.
Ext. B:- Attested copy of valuation Khatian in L.A. Case No. 14/2005-2006 of Village Toppa including report of the portion 8 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases of houses to be acquired for acquisition of 15.95 acres of land in Village-Toppa.
Ext. C:- Xerox attested copy of letter No. 466 dated 23.02.2007 with enclosures showing valuation of the houses including the house of the present petitioners.
20. After considering the entire evidence available on record, the impugned award / order was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.
21. At this juncture, it is apparent to discuss the principles of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in connection with the issue involved in these appeals as relied upon by the parties.
(i) In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), it was held that :
(a) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in justaposition. The positive factors are smallness of size, proximity to a road, frontage on a road, nearness to developed area, regular shape, level vis-à-vis land under acquisition, special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. The negative factors are largeness of area, situation in the interior at a distance from the road, narrow strip of land with very small frontage 9 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases compared to depth, lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up, remoteness from developed locality, some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser.
(b) One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. The price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
(c) The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. It has been held that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible. Normally one-third deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. It may not be correct to contend that there cannot be different deductions, one for the largeness of the land and another for development costs.
(d) Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, 10 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur.
Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.
(ii) In Vithal Rao and Another (Supra), it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:-
(a) It is just and reasonable to make appropriate deduction towards expenses for development of acquired land.
(b) Percentage of deduction would vary from 10% to 86% and, therefore, deduction should be made keeping in mind nature of land, area under acquisition, whether developed or not and, if so, to what extent, purpose of acquisition, etc.
(c) While determining market value of large chunk of land, value of smaller piece of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in value of lands and when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available.
(d) Court should also take into consideration potentiality of acquired land apart from other relevant considerations.
(e) Supreme Court has also recognized that courts can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23.
(f) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). 11 F.A. No. 190 of 2015
& Analogous Cases
(g) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(h) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(i) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisi- tion of land.)
(j) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(k) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle,
(l) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and 12 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases minus factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(m) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(n) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
(o) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge must place himself.
These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.
(iii) The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Supra).
(iv) In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and Another (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated following principles:-
(a) When the respondents rely upon certain sale deeds to justify the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector or to show that the market value was less than what is claimed by the claimants, and if the claimants produce satisfactory evidence to show that the market value was much higher, the sale deed relied upon by the respondents showing a lesser value may be inferred to be undervalued, or not showing the true value. Such deeds have to be excluded from consideration as being 13 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases unreliable evidence. A document which is found to be undervalued cannot be used as evidence.
(b) The existence of several other sale deeds showing a much higher value and the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector chose to award a higher rate in regard to some of the acquired lands, leads to an inevitable inference that Ex.R3 to R7 were either undervalued or were distress sales. Whatever be the reason, they are liable to be excluded from consideration.
(c) A disturbing trend in some recent cases has been noticed, where a court accepts the sale deed exhibited by the claimants as the basis for ascertaining the market value but also accepts a contention of the claimants that the sale deeds produced and relied on by them, should be assumed to be undervalued. On such assumption, some courts have been adding some fancied percentage to the value shown by the sale deeds to arrive at what they consider to be 'realistic market value'. The addition so made may vary from 10% to 100% depending upon the whims, fancies, and the perception of the learned Judge as to what is the general extent of suppression of the price in sale deeds. Such increase, in the market value disclosed by the sale deeds, on the assumption that all sale deeds show a 'depressed' market value instead of the real value, is impermissible. The Court can either accept the document as showing the prevailing market value, in which event it has to be acted upon. Or the Court may find a document to be undervalued in which it should be rejected straightaway as not reliable. There is no third 14 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases way of accepting a document, by adding to the market value disclosed by the document, some percentage to off- set the under-valuation.
(d) There is no legal basis to proceed on a general assumption that parties, without exception, fail to reflect the true consideration in the sale deeds, that there is always undervaluation or suppression of the true price and that consequently some percentage should be added to arrive at the real value. It also amounts to branding all vendors and purchasers as dishonest persons without any evidence and without hearing them. It ignores the fact that Government has fixed minimum guideline values and whenever a registering authority is of the view that a sale deed is undervalued, proceedings are initiated for determination of the true market value and that a large number of sale deeds are accepted by the registering authorities as disclosing the current market value.
22. Now coming back to the main points involved in this case and the reason for view taken by the learned court below while in passing of enhancement in the Award amount. The learned court below has taken judicial notice of following factors:-
(a) It is an admitted fact that village - Toppa is part of mines described under West Bokaro Coalfield in Schedule of the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act is of 1973.
(b) It is also an admitted fact that on objection, the case of the petitioners and other awardees were pending before the 15 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases Land Acquisition Officer, who in peace meal has referred the cases to the Court of Special Judge Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh. Out of which one bunch of cases have been dis-
posed of vide judgment dated 29.09.2010 passed in L.R. Case No. 45/2009 to 51/2009 and 53/2009 to 79/2009 arising out of the Land Acquisition Cases of this very project, which is Ext. A-1 on behalf of O.P. No. 2.
(c) In the said judgment the court had come to a conclusion that demand of the petitioners at the 20,000/- per decimal was unjust and unfair and a flat rate of Paddy- I land which came to the similar rate as per the documents filed by the petitioners of that case @ of 2403.67 was allowed for all nature of lands, which were assessed of as inferior to the Paddy-1 land. In the same judgment the sale deeds of the year 2001 having shown the lands at the rate of 3000/- per decimal was not considered giving reasoning the same having sold with smaller area, which according to the court was not fit to be taken as basis of assessment of the market rate.
(d) This case has to be considered in view of the evidence available on the record and the earlier finding cannot be a basis in deciding the present reference cases. I find certain available facts which were on the record earlier also but, the same could not be taken into consideration in deciding those cases. I find that there is no explanation that while applying Sales Statistics Method for computing the compensation was adopted by the O.P's., why the highest priced sale deed was not made as basis 16 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases of calculation when no other reason against the same has been assigned that the price in the same is exaggerated. Reference is here made with respect to Ext. 2/a, the sale deed No. 12272 dated 27.07.2004, whereby 10.5 decimals of land was sold at ₹ 34,000/- and this sale deed finds place in calculation chart of sale transaction at page 14 of Ext. A in the table of sale transactions made in the year 2004 at serial No. 4. This area 10.5 decimals of land is not a small piece of land which would come as a legal bar for not to consider such deeds. In the comparing chart given by the Q.Ps. the biggest chunk of land sold in the year 2002 to 2005 is 37, decimals and the smallest piece of land sold 0.02 decimal and all of them were taken into consideration calculating an year wise average chart. At this juncture the principle laid down in the judgment reported in AIR 1986 (P&H) Full Bench-143 that highest value should be preferred unless there are strong circumstances which may justify restoring to different course, is also applicable in this case specially when the acquisition of land in the village has been done for commercial purpose of excavation of coal. In a recent judgment of our Hon'ble High Court reported in 2014(1) JBCJ 594 [HC] it has been held as a guideline that "The rate of sale- purchase instance of the land having area of at least 10 decimal and more is required to be taken into consideration for the assessment of compensation." Here in this case there is a comparable sale deed which cross over this bar having 10 decimal of land as described above which the land acquisition 17 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases authorities ought to have consider as basis of computing the compensation.
(e) Undisputedly, all the basis amenities and sign of developing features like school, hospital, market place, electricity, Bank are there as appear from the evidence of petitioners also. The only fact as emerge from the evidence that, these benefits have been provided by CCL, but that does make any difference and it is also not a fact that every development project is by CCL only and the State has not provided any project in the village.
(f) Purpose of acquisition is admittedly for mining, the lands were fertile having source of livelihood of the petitioners and in that event differentiating in compensation on the basis of years old nature and classification according to Khatiyan prepared in the year 1907-08 or in the year 1915-16 becomes immaterial specially in the changed nature of area into industrial and mining hub. The rate of land in the year of classification of land has admittedly shoot up rapidly many fold by the passage of time. Village Ara having been notified as a mining area in the year 1973 itself surrounded by different other coal bearing mines and all these facts have to be ascertained and taken into account in addition to the sale instance computing method of compensation. In several recent decisions fixation of flat rate given as compensation by the reference courts have been approved by the Hon'ble Court, irrespective of calculation made on the basis of old classification of land by 18 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases the State authority. It is well settled that where the acquired land has got potentialities to be used for industrial or commercial purpose, court of law generally evaluate the land at flat rate and do not categorize the land. In this context reference may be made to the decision reported in 2009 JLJR (1) 129 Jhr. where fixation of flat rate on the ground of land being situated within industrial area, where several BCCL projects were going on, the land were found having similar potentialities and fixation of valuation of all land having different nature valued at different rates were fixed at the same rate considering the mining area was increasing substantially by the reference court was approved by the Hon'ble High Court.
(g) One more fact as emerge from Ext. - 3 goes to show that rate of different nature of land in village -Toppa in the year 2005 as approved by the Government even have not been con- sidered by the land acquisition authority. A comparing chart is relevant to mention:-
EXT-A (Page-15) EXT-3
Nature of Land Rate per Acre Rate per dec., Village-Topa at Sr. No. 42
Dhan-I 2,40,367=00 3650=00
Dhan-II 1,50,229=00 3470=00
Dhan-III 1,20,184=00 3300=00
Tand-I 1,98,216=00 3100=00
Tand-II 49,554=00 3000=00
Tand-III 24,777=00 2900=00
Parti 12,338=00
19
F.A. No. 190 of 2015
& Analogous Cases
23. Thus, the petitioners whose lands have been acquired are entitled to get compensation at the enhanced rate as compared to the compensation based on categorization of land on old Survey Records of Rights and also on a flat rate. What would be the flat rate, it has to be calculated on the sale deed compared and viewed in (Ext-A) by the State itself which has the highest consideration amount i.e. (Ext-2/a) which on calculation comes to Rs. 3238/- per decimals in the year 2004, just one year prior to the year of acquisition.
24. Petitioners have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per decimal cannot be accepted. Ext. 2/b which shows Rs. 4667/- per decimals highest rate cannot be considered as it pertains to sale of small area of 3 decimals only. Accordingly, the learned court below passed the order for granting compensation @ Rs. 3238/- per decimals as just compensation in favour of the petitioners along with solatium, interest and other monetary benefits provided under the Act.
25. I have gone through the basic principles for calculation of compensation amount as discussed hereinabove as propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the several decisions quoted above and find in the matter of calculation, the learned court below has touched the every aspect of the case and also admitted legal norms for ascertaining the amount of compensation.
26. So far question of deduction on account of development charges for a big chunk of land herein 15.95 acres is concerned, the learned court below appears to not have applied the sound reasoning, although admittedly several development areas are there and the land 20 F.A. No. 190 of 2015 & Analogous Cases is acquired for the purpose of mining business, it appears that there is necessity of some development work for the acquired land.
27. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 10% deduction towards development charges appears to be just and reasonable, as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vithal Rao (Supra).
28. In view of the discussion and reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity or legal justification to interfere with the judgment of learned court below in the matter of assessment of compensation amount and the enhancement of the same with sound reasons, but the order stands modified to the extent that there shall be 10% deduction towards development charges against the compensation amount.
29. However, if the awarded amount has already been paid to the land loosers / respondents, the deduction of 10% as development charges, as mentioned above, shall not be recovered from the respondents / land loosers.
30. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 12/03/2024 Sunil/NAFR