The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.172 of 2013 --------- Nakul Mahato …. ….. Appellant -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 2. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad …. ….. Respondents -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellant For the Resp.-BCCL: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate -------- : Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate -------- C.A.V. On : 28.11.2023 Pronounced On : 22.12.2023 Heard the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.07.2013 passed by Sri Diwakar Pandey, learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No.23/2010, whereby and wherein, learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation for Pucca house built over land appertaining to Plot No.66, Khata No.17 of Mouza-Sonardih, Mouza No.109, P.S. Sonardih, District-Dhanbad. The case of the appellant is that the aforesaid land which was a fast track land along-with dwelling houses were acquired by the State Government vide Notification dated 09.04.2007 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favour of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s. B.C.C.L). The award was prepared in Land Acquisition Case No.14/2004-2005 as Award No.518 in the name of the appellant and notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 02.07.2010 to the tune of Rs.36,652.80/-. The grievance of the appellant is that the award was under valued and the valuation of Pucca house standing on the aforesaid land was not taken into consideration, while preparing the award. It has been pleaded that the house mentioned in the Scheduled of this application is valued for more than of Rupees Two Lakhs, according to the prevailing market rate. The appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act on 10.08.2010 well within the prescribed period for enhancement of compensation for Pucca house. His application was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad for determination of proper compensation. Accordingly, L.A. Reference Case No. 23-45/2010 was instituted. 2 Learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant, held that the compensation provided to the appellant was adequate and as such, he was not liable for payment of enhanced compensation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has examined Sri Shushil Kumar, the Charter Engineer- cum-Valuer and as per the assessment of this witness, the net value after depreciation of the house was Rs.1,29,790/-. It was submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad has not considered the evidence of the valuer Sri Shushil Kumar and has rejected the claim of the appellant arbitrarily. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) has submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Court has rightly rejected the report of Sri Shushil Kumar, who has been examined as A.W.3 as the report of Sri Shushil Kumar was without on any basis. It was further submitted that this witness has also failed to explain as to what was the basis for valuing the house standing on the land of the appellant to the tune of Rs.1,29,790/-. On this ground, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed. In order to prove its case, both the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellant has mainly relied upon the testimony of Sri Shushil Kumar A.W.3 who is recognized Charter Engineer-cum- Valuer. He has also proved his valuation reports which are Exhibit-1 series. On the other hand, M/s. BCCL has examined one Giraja Kumar Banerjee. They have also adduced the certified copy of the valuation report, Khatian relating to respective Awards, certified copy of rate chart and Letter No.10/D.L.A.DHN/BCCL-20/09-237 dated 02.04.2009, which have been marked as Exhibits-A to A/22 series respectively. The main dispute between the parties is over the valuation of the house standing over the land appertaining to Plot No.66, Khata No.17 at Village-Sonardih, P.S. Sonardih, District-Dhanbad, which was not taken into account, while preparation of the award. The appellant has mainly relied upon the valuation report of Sri Shushil Kumar A.W.3 who has valued the house at Rs.1,29,790/-. Now, the question is whether the learned L.A. Court has rightly 3 dismissed the claim of the appellant Nakul Mahato or whether the appellant is entitled to compensation with regard to the building standing on the land appertaining to Plot No.66, Khata No.17 of Mouza-Sonardih which was acquired by the State Government vide Notification dated 09.04.2007 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 in favour of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. As stated above, the appellant has mainly relied upon the statement of Shushil Kumar, A.W.3 who is a Charter Engineer by occupation and has submitted a valuation report, stating that the building standing on the land, in question, was valued at about Rs.1,29,790/-. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he had valued the building standing on the aforesaid land after getting it measured as per norms and rate, prescribed by P.W.D. Thereafter, he prepared a valuation report. He has proved the valuation report of the appellant in evidence along-with the valuation report of other land owners, which are Exhibit-1 series. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the valuation was done at the instance of the appellant and process was carried out in absence of the opposite party-BCCL. The opposite party was neither present nor was informed about it. He has further stated that no measurement book was prepared at the time of valuation and he has not asked the Circle Officer of the concerned area to submit the rate chart. This witness has also admitted that only Public Works Department is authorized to make such valuation. Learned L.A. Court had discarded the evidence of Shushil Kumar A.W.3 on the ground that the valuation process was carried out in absence of opposite parties. The appellant has also not produced the rate chart, approved by P.W.D and also the fact that no record was prepared regarding the measurement book etc. On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited has examined Giraja Kumar Banerjee as opposite party witness No.1. He has stated that the award in relation to the acquisition of land of the appellant was prepared and the appellant has received the compensation. The award was prepared after measuring the land and valuing the land as per the Government norms and market rate. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the award was prepared as 4 per the prevailing market rate at that time. The opposite party-BCCL has also adduced the valuation Khatian of nearby land in evidence, which are Exhibit-A series. From perusal of which, it appears that the award prepared for the compensation to be paid to the appellant against the acquisition of his land was as per the prevalent market rate of the land. Though, the appellant has claimed that while preparing the award, the valuation of the house standing on the said land was not taken into consideration but the appellant has failed to prove by cogent evidence, exact valuation of the house standing on the acquired land. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that in absence of any cogent evidence, the appellant has failed to prove his case in terms of preponderance of probability and the established tenants of civil jurisprudence and as such, not liable for enhanced compensation as claimed and the learned L.A. Court has rightly dismissed the reference, stating that the appellant is not entitled to get the compensation at enhanced rate. Accordingly, it is hereby, ordered that this appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Award passed by the learned L.A Court, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No.23/2010 stands affirmed. The parties shall share their own costs. B.S./- (Ambuj Nath, J.)