C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 157 of 2008 ----- C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) .... Versus .... …. Appellant 1 (i) Ruplal Bedia (Abated vide order dated 01.12.2021) 2(i) Manju Devi 2(ii) Laxmi Kumari 2(iii) Dilip Kumar Bedia 2(iv) Monika 2(v) Sunil 3. Kanchan Bediya (Abated vide order dated 01.12.2021) 4. Prem Chand Bedia 5. Sudhna @ Budhna Bediya (Abated vide order dated 01.12.2021) 6. Most. Shitali 7(i) Shanti Devi (Abated vide order dated 01.12.2021) 7(ii) Ram Prasad Bedia 7(iii) Sadhu Bedia 7(iv) Phulmania Devi 8(i) Tarkeshwar Bedia 8(ii) Targhana Bedia 8(iii) Mutra Bedia 8(iv) Basant Bedia 8(v) Nepali Bedia 8(vi) Sonu 9(i) Phulmania Devi 9(ii) Rajendra Bedia (Abated vide order dated 01.12.2021) 9(iii) Santosh Bedia 9(iv) Umesh Bedia 9(v) Ajay Bedia (Abated vide order dated 01.12.2021) 10. Aitwa 11(i) Rudan Devi 11(ii) Pandu Bedia 11(iii) Vinod Bedia 11(iv) Manglal Bedia 11(v) Bablu Bedia 12. Balkishun 13(i) Parwati Devi 13(ii) Kamal Nath 13(iii) Chote Lal Bedia 14. Shiv Narayan 15. Jagan Ram 16(i) Kajari Devi 16(ii) Chandu Bedia 16(iii) Indra Bedia 16(iv) Bhola Bedia 16(v) Sulan Bedia 16(vi) Gulan Bedia 16(vii) Chotelal Bedia 16(viii) Shoba Devi 17. Most. Jakni (Died on 06.12.2008) 18. Ashram (Died on 07.03.2006) 19. Mahadeo 20(i) Surdhania Devi (Abated vide order dated 01.12.2021) 20(ii) Rajmuni Devi 20(iii) Kajo Kumari 21(i) phekni Devi 2 21(ii) Ajay 22. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... WITH .... Respondents First Appeal No. 151 of 2008 ----- C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) Versus 1. Bal Kishan Bedia 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag WITH .... .... …. Appellant .... .... .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
First Appeal No. 152 of 2008 ----- C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1(i) Sukra Bedia 1 (ii) Rajan Bedia 1 (iii) Rajesh Bedia 2 (i) Babuna Bedia 3 (i) Shibu Bedia 4 (i) Rameshwar Bedia 5. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents WITH First Appeal No. 153 of 2008 ----- C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Bijay Bediya (Abated vide order dated 04.11.2020) 2. Madhuwa Bediya (Abated vide order dated 04.11.2020) 3. Kuldeep Bediya 4. Kaliya Bediya 5. Sarju Bediya 6. Birsa Bediya 7(i) Gandiya Devi 7(ii) Ajay Bedia 7(iii) Vinod Bedia 8. Ruma Bediya 9. Doman Bediya 10. Kailash Bediya 11. Juner Bediya 12. Rameshwar Bediya 13. Jogan Bediya 14. Surja Bedia 15. Dhaneshwar Bediya (Abated vide order dated 04.11.2020) 16. Bhuneshwar Bediya 17. Parmeshwer Bediya 18. Balkishun Bediya 19. Jai Kishun Bediya 20. Satya Narayan Bediya 21. Sheo Narayan Bediya 22. Jiw Narayan Bediya 23. Dasrath Bediya 24. Charki Devi 25. Gouri Shanker Bediya 3 26 (i) Shanti Devi 26 (ii) Kanya Devi 26 (iii) Ashok Bedia 26 (iv) Chumna Bedia 27. Daneshwari Devi 28. Jaiki Bediya 29. Beeki Bediya 30. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents WITH First Appeal No. 154 of 2008 ----- C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1(i) Panwa Devi 1(ii) Pramila Kumari 1 (iii) Dinesh Bedia 1 (iv) Manoj Bedia 2 (i) Baldeo Bedia 2 (ii) Sunil Bedia 3. Baldev Bediya 4. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents WITH First Appeal No. 155 of 2008 ----- C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Manik Bediya 2. Harish Chandra Bediya 3 (i) Sohbatia Devi 4. Dharopti Kumari 5. Lalchand Bediya 6. Basant Narayan Lal 7. Jagarnath Lal 8. Jag Narayan Lal 9. Manoj Kumar 10.Naresh Bediya 11. Suresh Bediya 12. Suraj Nath Bediya 13. Raghu Bediya 14. Dasrath Bediya 15. Oinesh Bediya 16. Oilep Bediya 17. Anuj Bediya 18. Raghu Bediya 19 (i)Dasrath Bediya 19 (ii) Dinesh Bediya 19 (iii) Dilip Bediya 19 (iv) Anuj Kumar Bediya 19 (v) Kachanti Kumari 20. Baleshwar Bediya 21. Sonwa Bediya 22. Baiju Bediya 23. Jains Bediya 24. Meghnath Bediya 4 25. Dharamnath Bediya 26. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents WITH First Appeal No. 156 of 2008 ----- C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi (Central Coalfields Limited) .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Baldeo Bedia 2. Prabhu Bedia 3. Binod Bedia 4. Bihari Bedia 5. Shama Bedia 6. Chapata Bedia 7. Tilaka Bedia 8. Chhedilal Bedia 9. Nirswa Devi 10. Ramu Bedia (Died on 29.08.2012) 11. Latlu Bedia 12. Most. Ramni 13. Sanichar Bediya 14 (i) Ugani Devi 14 (ii) Ganesh Kumar Bedia 14 (iii) Soni Kumari 14 (iv) Sunita Kumari 15. Babuni Bedia 16. Ruplal Bedia 17. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the State For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I : Mr. Swami Dayanand, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Subhash Kongari, Advocate CAV ON : 21.07.2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 28.07.2023 All the appeals arise out of same award and involve the same question of
Decision
fact and law and are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 1. These batch of appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, arise out of a common judgment passed in L.R. Case No. 73 of 1993, L.R. Case No. 69 of 1993, L.R. Case No. 71 of 1993, L.R. Case No. 63 of 1993, L.R. Case No. 72 of 1993, L.R. Case No. 70 of 1993 and L.R. Case No. 62 of 1993 respectively arising out of L.A. Case No. 8 of 1986-87, by which the learned Sub-Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh, has assessed and fixed the compensation @ Rs. 2888/- per decimal, at a flat rate for the entire land acquired. 2. Appellant is a public sector undertaking for which 48.70 acres of land in Village Sirka, P.S.-Mandu, District Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh), was acquired for the 5 purpose of the Central Coalfields Limited. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 04.01.1989. A corrigendum thereafter was published on 16.01.1990. Award was prepared in favour of the land losers fixing the rate of compensation. The land losers objected to the rates. Due to the objection, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was heard by the Sub-Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition. The claimants claim that the entire lands are homestead land and are situated just besides the Pucca road which runs from Ramgarh to Ranchi. The lands are situated between Argadda and Ramgarh market. There are several collieries such as Sirka, Argadd, Giddi and Bhurkunda nearby the acquired land. It is claimed that the market is by the side of the land so acquired. It is contended that it is a commercial area with several factories, Railway Station, Schools etc. Claimants claim compensation on market value of land to be about 10,000/- per decimal. They claim higher compensation and submitted that the rate of compensation, fixed by the Collector, is very low. 3. Appellant Central Coalfields Limited on impleadment appeared, filed their written statement and contested the claim. Plea of the area being commercial area has been contested. In their written statement, they claim that the distance of the land from Naisaray and Ramgarh is about 20-25 kilometers. Giddi colliery is also about 8 kilometer away from the acquired land. There is no market in the vicinity. Some colonies have developed around the acquired land and those were developed by the Central Coalfields Limited for the welfare of the employees. Existence of factories in nearby areas is not disputed, but claimed that they are about 10-15 kilometers away. The existence of Hospital, Cinema Hall, School etc. around the acquired land is denied. It is admitted that infrastructural development has taken place besides the acquired land and there is existence of electricity, water supply etc., but they are for the residences of their employees and has been provided by the Central Coalfields Limited and these facilities are not general as claimed by the claimants. Their claim is that the rate so fixed is correct and needs no interference or enhancement. 4. Eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants and the following documents have been adduced into evidence: Ext.-1, is certified copy of the judgment dt. 04.02.1993, passed in L.R. Case No. 659/92, by Addl. Sub-Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, L.A. Ext.-1/a, is the certified copy of the judgment passed in L.R. case No. 56/89 to 70/89 dt. 05.12.1989 by the Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh. Ext.-1/b, is the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in F.A. No. 877 to 886/93(R), dt. 24.02.03 (arising out of L.A. Case No. 659 to 668/92). Ext.-1/c, is the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in analogous F.A. No. 150 to 181/92(R), in L.R. Case 6 No. 567/91 to 598/91. Ext.-1/d, is the certified copy of the judgment passed in L.R. Case Nos. 63, 63, 67 and 69 to 73/93 dt. 01.05.08 passed by this Court. Ext.-2, is the certified copy of the sale deed dt. 19.03.82 with respect to lands of Khata No. 353, Plot No. 39 having an area of 2 decimals of Mouza Ramgarh, Thana no. 82. Ext.-2/a, is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 14.03.85 with respect to the lands of Mouza Ramgarh appertaining to khata no. 353, plot no. 41 having an area of 2 decimals. Ext.-2/b, is also the certified copy of the registered sale deed dt. 17.07.86 with respect to lands of Mouza Sirka appertaining to khata no. 18, plot no. 964 having an area of 7 decimals. 5. The appellant-opposite party has also adduced oral and documentary evidences. One witness was examined on their behalf, who is Suresh Paswan (O.P.W-1) and the following documents have been adduced into evidence: Ext.-A, is valuation Khatiyan vide Case No. 8/86-87. Ext.-B, is the rate report and Ext.-C, is the sale figure from the period 1986 to 1989. 6. The Land Acquisition Judge, discarded the lowest rate of sale deed adduced into evidence for calculating compensation. The Court assessed compensation by reckoning highest rate, at Rs. 2,22,224/- per acre. Since the land acquired came under the category of Tand I classification of land, and three years prior to the notification of the acquisition, taking the proximate increase in price index for three years, @ 10% per year, which came to 30%, finally assessed the valuation at Rs. 2,88,891.20 paise per acres and calculated the market price and the valuation of the acquired lands per decimal to Rs. 2889/-. 7. Main plea advanced on behalf of appellant Central Coalfields Limited is that assessment of valuation proceeds on wrong premise. There was no evidence of market, hospital, schools etc. A huge chunk of land was acquired, and it cannot be equated with valuation, for only for 8-10 decimals of land, sold by private parties. Acquired lands were in interior village which is 20-25 km away from Naisaray. Assessment of 10% in the price hike per year by the Court was alien to the process of determination of fair market value. In Village Sirka, i.e., in the same village, lands were acquired just few months prior to the issuance of this notification for the same purpose. The said notification was issued on 01.10.1988. The compensation fixed in relation to that acquisition was challenged by the awardees and ultimately, in the batch cases being F.A. Nos. 877 to 886 of 1993, this Court held that Rs. 1800/- per decimals was the correct market value of the land and thus dismissed the appeals. Relying on the said judgment it is submitted that valuation should be Rs. 1800/- per decimals. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants- respondents defends the award. It is submitted that there was evidence, both oral and documentary in 7 support of their claim. Witnesses of the Central Coalfields Limited have admitted that the lands are developed and there are several colonies in the same area, which has been established for residential purpose. Total area of acquired land is only 48 acres, thus, it cannot be said that the area was so huge that it diminished its market value. He further submits that the sale deed, which has been annexed, supports the case of the claimants-respondents and the Court below has committed no illegality. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, it is indisputable that acquisition is of the year 1989-90. Eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants. PW-1 deposed that the lands were suitable for construction of buildings and shops. He further deposed that the workshop of Central Coalfields Limited is very near to the acquired land. Roads and the facilities of electricity and water already existed and the road was close to the acquired land. It has been deposed that earlier also the lands were acquired in favour of the Central Coalfields Limited for which Rs. 1800/- per decimal was assessed. 10. PW-3 deposed that there are several factories nearby the acquired land. He also stated that the lands, which are the subject matter of the current acquisition is contiguous to the lands, which were earlier acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited, for which compensation @ Rs. 1800/- per decimal was paid. He further submitted that there are collieries nearby the acquired lands. PW-4 stated that the lands are near the Ranchi-Ramgarh Road. PW-6 stated that the area is well developed and the land is between Giddi and Ramgarh. He stated that there is Government hospital nearby the acquired land. 11. Opposite parties have examined one Suresh Paswan (O.P.W.1), a Kanungo in the District Land Acquisition Office, Hazaribagh and Shobha Sao, a Chain Man. Suresh Paswan has testified to of several factories running nearby and residential colonies, office, banks and hospital were also there. This witness clearly admitted in cross-examination that the facilities of road, water and electricity were available and industrialization of the area. Similarly, O.P.W-2 also admits that prior to the notification; land was developed and was having Banks, schools and hospitals. 12. Thus, from the oral evidence, there cannot be two views that the area was well developed. 13. Regarding the correct valuation, the trial Court has held that there are sufficient sale figures from the sale deeds adduced into evidence, which would suggest the valuation to be Rs.2,22,224/- per acres. The Court below differed with lowest sale value taken by the Collector and assessed valuation as per the highest sale value as per market rate. After taking into consideration the highest sale value, the Court assessed that the rate to Rs.2,22,224/- per acre, but observed that the sale figure was of the year 1986, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is of the year 1989. The Court thus, took into consideration the 8 increase in the price of land and held that 10% increase per year is natural and hiking the rate @ 10% per year, concluded that the rate per decimal should be Rs. 2889/-. 14. Calculation of compensation @ Rs. 2889/- per decimal taking the base line rate of land of the same area by Court below cannot be faulted. 15. On the question of deduction in valuation it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others- versus- K.S. Gangadharappa and Another, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 164, that the market value of large chunk of land cannot be determined by the rate of small plots. It has been held in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs.- versus- State of Gujrat, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789 that deduction can be made in case of large scale acquisition of land. 16. What can be culled from the ratio as discussed above is that there has to be deduction in case of acquisition for large chunk of land and it cannot be equated with land valuation of small pieces of land. In the instant case, the area of land, which was sold and was taken as a basis for assessment of valuation is very small running in decimals whereas the land acquired is about 50 acres. 17. Considering the area acquired in view of this Court just and fair percentage of deduction should be 15%. On 15 % deduction from Rs.2889/-, the value comes to Rs.2455.65 per decimal and rounding off would come to Rs.2456/-. 18. The judgment of the Sub-Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh is thus modified to the extent that the market value of the land would be fixed at Rs.2456/- per decimal. Accordingly, a fresh award should be prepared. All these appeals thus, are partly allowed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 28th July, 2023 AFR / Anit