Sushil Kumar (in all appeals) v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Appeal From Original Decree No. 70 of 1982 ( R) with Appeals From Original Decree No. 71 & 72 of 1982(R) Against the judgment and award dated 23.12.1981 passed by Sri P.K. Sinha, Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Ref. Cases No.42, 33 and 38 of 1980 respectively. 1. Ram Lal Mahto 2. Jagarnath Mahto 3. Nirmal Kumar Mahto 4. Rabindra Mahto 5. Arbind Mahto 6. Pradeep Kumar 7. Parmeshwar Mahto 8. Sushil Kumar (in all appeals) ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand (in all appeals) ... Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
Legal Reasoning
For the appellants: M/s Reeta Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Govt. Advocate. CAV on 22.8.2013 Pronounced on 06/9/2013 D.N.Upadhyay,J. These appeals have been preferred against common judgment and award dated 23.12.1981 whereby a batch of L.A. Ref Cases No. 18 of 1980 to 47 of 1980 have been disposed of by the learned Special Judge (Land Acquisition) Dhanbad . 2 Facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to these appeals are as under : It is an admitted and undisputed fact that for the purpose of acquisition of the land on the basis of the rate report (Exhibit H), a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Ext D) was issued on 21.5.1975 and the date of publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 2 the Act) was 16.3.1976. It was published in the district Gazette ( Ext. F). Order under section 7 of the Act was received on 3.5.1976 and the notices under section 9 of the Act were issued on 1.6.1976. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that only sale chart (Ext E) submitted by the Land Acquisition Department showing rates on which land in and around the vicinity were sold during the year 1973-75 was accepted to decide the rates of acquired land. The sale chart of various lands ( serial no. 1 to 32) without any rate report should not have been accepted. No reasons have been assigned by the land acquisition department as to why the sale price in item no. 32 of the sale chart should be accepted as the model sale price for fixing rates of compensation of class I land. The sale chart brought on record by the circle officer does not indicate the class of lands which were subject matter of transaction and, as such, sale chart of item no.32 which relates to sale of 3 (three ) decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 50, plot nos. 120 and 122 should not have been considered to decide and accept as model price for awarding compensation against the land acquired. The learned court below should have held that the sale rate given in item no.32 of the sale chart was in respect of class II land as have been ascertained by the land acquisition department itself and thus the learned court below has committed gross error in declaring plot no.120 and 122 as class I land. The objection raised by the appellants under section 9 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer were not considered by the learned Special Judge. The department is not authorized to classify the land without assigning 3 reasons. It was also submitted that the land in question acquired is situated at a distance of 5 kms from the Bokaro Steel Plant and after installation of the Plant (Bokaro Steel Limited), the aforesaid area has seen development and there was chance of urbanization and commercialization of land. Learned counsel also submitted that at least increase at the rate of 10 @ per annum should have been considered by the learned Special Judge (Land Acquisition). The trial court has committed error on banking upon the judgment (Ext 3A) which relates to the land acquired in the year 1956. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State has submitted that the learned Special Judge has considered all the points raised by the appellants in course of trial and the value of the land acquired was rightly assessed and increased by calculating average between the market rate prevailing at the relevant point of time and the sale chart available in the office of the District Sub Registry, Dhanbad. It was pointed out that it is manifest from paragraphs 28 and 29 of the impugned judgment that the learned court below has discussed the reasonings on the basis of which rates of acquired land have been decided. There is no merit in these appeals which are liable to be dismissed with costs. 5 I have gone through the impugned judgment against which these appeals have been preferred. From perusal of the para 28 of the judgment, it reveals that Ext E ( sale chart) in all the 32 sale transaction were taken into consideration. The sale price mentioned in item no.1 to 31 were not accepted; rather, the sale price 4 in item no.32 ( Registration no. 4317 dated 29.4.1975) was accepted as the model sale price for fixing the rate of compensation of class 1 land. The aforesaid deed was executed for 3 decimals of land appertaining to khata no. 50, plot no.120 and 122, being tanr 1 land sold for Rs. 300/- ( three hundred). Thus, it was accepted that the land was sold at the rate of Rs.100/- ( one hundred) per decimal of land i.e. Rs. 10,000/- ( rupees ten thousand ) per acre. Before coming to the conclusion, the learned Special Judge had also taken into consideration the sale deeds ( Ext. 1 to 1D) produced on behalf of the appellants. Learned Special Judge has rightly held that these documents were not helpful to the appellants, because the price of the land indicated therein was certainly lower than the price indicated in item no. 32 of the sale chart produced by the Land Acquisition Department. Not only that, learned Special Judge has also discussed categorically the sale chart (Ext E) vide item no. 1 to 32. While doing so, learned court below has taken into consideration item no.1,2,3,7,8,9,25 and 23. In all those items, lands were sold @ Rs. 125/- per decimal of land and therefore the learned Special Judge has calculated average value between Rs. 100/- per decimal of land and Rs. 125/- per decimal of land and after calculating the average, decided the rate of compensation @ Rs. 11,250/- per acre for class 1 land. It was the admitted case of the respondent in the court below that some of the items appearing between sale chart produced by them were indicating that the lands in the said vicinity were sold @ Rs.125/- per decimal. 6 After going through the concluding part of the 5 judgment as contained in para 35 to 38, it appears that there was no occasion for the learned court below to calculate average for deciding the compensation against the land acquired. It is necessary to be taken into consideration at this juncture that the lands in question were acquired as far back as in the year 1976 and the LA reference
Decision
cases were disposed of in the year 1981 which resulted in filing of these appeals (FA No. 70, 71 and 72 of 1982 ( R) against LA Ref cases No. 42, 33 and 38 of 1980 respectively ) in the year 1982. These appeals have now come up for final disposal under the heading for hearing after lapse of about 37 years. There can be no doubt that in all these years the area has apparently made considerable development, but such improvement and development has to be considered according to the place of progress and development in the State of Jharkhand and it could not be decided on the basis of the steadfast and spectacular development and progress made in the State of Punjab & Haryana, more particularly in the district of Gurgaon, in the State of Haryana. If the pleadings and evidence of the parties available on record is accepted, then I will have to accept the market rate on which lands within the said vicinity were sold at the relevant point of time and in this view of the matter, I do not agree with the average rate calculated by the learned Special Judge and I feel inclined to decide the compensation @ Rs. 12,500/- ( rupees twelve thousand and five hundred) per acre for Dhan 1 and Tanr 1 land. So far as value of other class of lands is concerned, it shall be considered and fixed as per the direction given by the learned Special Judge in the impugned 6 judgment and award. Other benefits like additional compensation and the rate of interest as have been decided by the learned Special Judge are hereby upheld and the same shall be calculated till the date of payment of the compensation amount to the appellants. 7 With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and award, these appeals are allowed. The respondent State is directed to pay to the appellants or to deposit the decretal amount within ninety days from the date of this judgment, failing which the appellants shall be entitled to recover the amount through process of the court. The office is directed to prepare the modified award accordingly. The parties shall bear their own cost. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated 06/9/2013 Ambastha/NAFR ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)