C.M.D., Darbhanga House, (C.C. Ltd.), Ranchi through General Manager (L & R) T.N.B. Rao v. 1. Bhola Mahto
Case Details
2025:JHHC:34583 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 22 of 2008 C.M.D., Darbhanga House, (C.C. Ltd.), Ranchi through General Manager (L & R) T.N.B. Rao, S/o T Subbaiah, R/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, Kanke Road, PO Kanke, PS Gonda, District Ranchi … … Opp. Party/Appellant Versus 1. Bhola Mahto (substituted vide order dated 12.06.2019) 1(i) Phulwa Devi, W/o Bhola Mahto (deleted vide order dt. 01.05.2025) 1(ii) Dinu Mahato, S/o Bhola Mahto 1(iii) Binod Mahato, S/o Bhola Mahto 1(iv) Phuleshwari Devi 1(v) Sumitra Devi 1(vi) Babita Devi 1(vii) Lalita Devi 1(viii) Santoshi Devi All daughters of Late Bhola Mahto and Phulwa Devi @ Jirwa Devi, All R/o – C/o Dinu Mahto, Village Murpa, P.O. & P.S. Mandu, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand) 2. Nandu Mahto 3. Bandu Mahto 4. Hiraman Mahto All sons of Bulaki Mahto, resident of Village Murpa, P.O. & P.S. Mandu, District Hazaribagh … … Applicants/Respondents 5. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh … … Opp. Party/Proforma Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
judgement passed by this Court in F.A. No. 10 of 2008. 12. The appellant to appear before the learned court on 26th February 2026 at 11:00 a.m. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 14. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through “e- mail/FAX”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 19.11.2025 Mukul/- Uploaded On: 28.01.2026 6
Arguments
--- : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate 22/19th November 2025 --- 1 2025:JHHC:34583 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.08.2007 passed in L.R. Case No. 447/1992 corresponding to L.A. Case No. 05/86- 87 passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge II-cum-Special Judge, L.A., Hazaribagh by which the reference was allowed along with other analogous cases holding that the rates of lands should be assessed and treated at Rs. 2,800/- per decimal for giving compensation to the awardees. The impugned judgment is common judgment in connection with numerous L.R. Cases total 51 in number right from L.A. Case No. 411/92 to 461/92. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that pursuant to order dated 12.06.2019, respondent no. 1, namely, Bhola Mahto was substituted by his legal heirs and successors i.e. respondent nos. 1(i), 1(ii) and 1(iii) and the appellant was directed to take steps for service of notice upon respondent no. 1(i), namely, Phulwa Devi only as respondent no. 1(ii) and 1(ii) have already appeared through lawyer. 4. Further, vide order dated 08.05.2025, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent no. 1 is having five daughters, for which a prayer has been made through I.A. No. 6235 of 2025 to bring them on record in the array of the respondents as respondent Nos. 1(iv) to 1(viii). The said interlocutory application was allowed and accordingly notices were issued and upon respondent Nos. 1(iv) to 1(viii). Vide order dated 01.05.2025, the name of respondent no. 1(i) has been struck off from the memo of parties as it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent no. 1(i) has died. As per office note, Respondent no. 1(ii) and 1(iii) appeared through Vakalatnama and no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1(iv) to 1(viii). 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a batch of cases have been decided vide judgment dated 12.06.2019 passed in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 and other analogous cases and the matter was remanded 2 2025:JHHC:34583 back to the learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication as there was no reason assigned by the learned trial court to give compensation @ Rs. 2800 per decimal. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgment passed in F.A. No. 10 of 2008. The learned counsel submits that the present appeal was adjourned at that time on account of the fact that the substitution of the respondent no.1 was pending. 6. The learned counsel submits that in the batch of cases the matter was remanded to the concerned court by observing that it was not mentioned in the impugned judgment as to on what basis, the compensation @ Rs. 2,800/- has been arrived at and the finding of the learned court about the market value was not supported by any reason and the finding was not in consonance with the documentary evidence on record. The learned counsel submits that this appeal be also remanded to the concerned court in terms of judgment passed in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 and there is no distinguishing feature as the entire batch was decided on the same set of evidence placed on record and by common judgment. 7. The fact that a batch of appeals arising out of the common judgement passed by the learned court have been allowed in terms of judgement passed in batch of cases including F.A. No. 10 of 2008 is not in dispute from the side of the respondents also. s 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, this Court finds that numerous appeals arising out of batch of L.R. cases decided by common judgement by the same court have been ultimately disposed of by this Court in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 with other analogous cases. 9. The findings recorded in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 in paragraph 11 to 15 are quoted as under: - for “11. I find that the lands involved in these batch of appeals were acquired the purpose of Central Coalfields Limited. Notification was published on 28.07.1987 and the declaration is dated 07.08.1989. Total area acquired is 94.55 acres, out of which objection has been raised in respect of 76.75 acres of 3 2025:JHHC:34583 land. It is also admitted fact that the lands were classified into 8 categories, i.e., Dhan I, Dhan II, Dhan III, Tanr I, Tanr II, Tanr II, Parti and Gairmazuruwa Aam. There is no evidence that the nature of land has changed. The objectors, mainly challenge the rate, which was fixed by the authority in respect of each category of the land. Be it mentioned that the rates are as follows: - Dhan I Dhan II Dhan III Tanr I Tanr II Tanr III Parti Gairmazurua Rs.1050/- per decimal Rs.656.25 per decimal Rs.525/- per decimal Rs.1050/- per decimal Rs.262.50 per decimal Rs.65.63 per decimal Rs.32.81 per decimal Rs.32.81 per decimal 12. These are the rates, which were prevalent for the purpose of registration. The objectors relied upon Exhibit 2 series. These exhibits are two sale deeds. In Sale Deed No.5326, 5 decimals of land was sold at Rs.20,000/-. Similarly Sale Deed No.3891 is also in respect of 5 decimals of land and the consideration amount is Rs.21,000/-. As per these two sale deeds, the rate per decimal comes to Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4200/- per decimal. When I carefully look at these two sale deeds, I find that these sale deeds are in respect of lands of Village Kuju and not of Village Murpa. From the oral evidence of the witnesses, especially, A.W.3 and A.W.1, I find that this particular land is situated 1 k.m. away from Kuju Market. A.W.1 has stated that the acquired lands are in between Kuju and Arra. This shows that the sale deeds are of different place and not of the place from where acquisition had taken place. The Court below, on the basis of these two sale deeds, had concluded that the value of good quality of land is Rs.4,000/- per decimal, which the learned Court below could not have. 13. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, I find that A.W.1 has stated that the lands were declared to be urban, but, no documents were produced in support of such statement. A.W.3 has stated that the land is 1 k.m. away from Kuju Market and the hospital is also 1 k.m. away from the acquired lands. A.W.4 has stated that the railway halt is 2 k.m. away from the acquired lands. The witnesses have also stated that the acquired land are 4 2025:JHHC:34583 1 k.m. away from the highway. Evidence of these witnesses suggests that the land was not on the highway. Exhibit ‘C’ series are the sale figures of land of the same village, i.e., Murpa. From the said sale figures, I find that the sale deed, which was executed on 25.09.1987 being sale deed No.11066 in respect of 7.36 acres of land fetched Rs.21,000/- only. Against the said sale value, the classification of land was shown as mixed. Similarly, the sale deed dated 20.06.1986 covering 20 decimals of land fetched Rs.21,000/-. Dhan II land of 4 decimals fetched Rs.10,000/-, which was sold vide deed dated 21.06.1986. The deed dated 19.03.1987 for 9 decimals of land fetched Rs.10,000/. These figures, clearly suggest that there are different rates in respect of each category of land. The Court below also admitted that the rates are varying in respect of the land, but, concluded that the higher category of land is valued at Rs.4,000/- per decimal. This valuation of Rs.4,000/- is solely based on the two sale deeds produced by the objectors. As held earlier, these two sale deeds could not have been the basis for assessing the sale figure of the lands, which are fertile, because of the reason that these two deeds are not of the same village where the acquired lands situate. Further the area of land covered by the said sale deeds is only 5 decimals of land, which cannot be taken as basis where huge chunk of land is acquired. Further, I find that the Court below has not considered the rate chart in proper perspective. The Court below, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, while deciding the amount of compensation, has considered the market value of fertile lands to be Rs.4,000/- per decimal. The learned court also concluded that Dhan I, Dhan II, Dhan III and Tanr I lands are only 26 acres out of 76.75 acres. While doing so, has concluded that the correct market value of the entire land, i.e., 76.75 acres should be Rs.2,800/- per decimal. On what basis, this amount of Rs.2,800/- per decimal has been arrived at has not been mentioned. Thus, I feel that the conclusion arrived by the learned Court about the market value of the land is not supported by any reasons. Further, the same is not in consonance with the documentary evidence on record. Since there is no reason as to why the amount of Rs.2,800/- per decimal has been assessed as market value of the lands, I feel that the said assessment and valuation cannot be sustained. 14. In view of the aforesaid findings, these batch of appeals need to be allowed. The judgment and the award passed by the Court 5 2025:JHHC:34583 below, which are impugned in each of the Land Reference Case impugned in each of the First Appeals passed by the Court below are set aside. The matter in each of the Land Reference Case in these batch of appeals is remitted back to the Court of Subordinate Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh for deciding each of the cases afresh taking into consideration all the documents, which are on record. It is made clear that the concerned Court will try to dispose of the Land Reference Cases within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records from this Court after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. 15. Office is directed to remit the Lower Court Records in connection with each of the Land Reference Cases in these batch of analogous appeals through Special Messenger to the Court below.” 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the present appeal arising out of L.R. Case No. 447 of 1992 is also allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 and other analogous cases. 11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment relating to L.R. Case No. 447 of 1992 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned for fresh decision in accordance with law and in terms of