The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. –Deoghar, District v. Smt. Asha Jha, wife of Niranjan Jha, resident of village –Madarichak, P.O. & P.S
Case Details
F.A. No. 87 of 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.87 of 2020 ------ The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. –Deoghar, District -Deoghar .... …. Opposite Party/Appellant .... Versus Smt. Asha Jha, wife of Niranjan Jha, resident of village –Madarichak, P.O. & P.S. –Deoghar, Circle –Deoghar, District -Deoghar .... Petitioner/Objector/ Respondent For the Appellant For the Respondent .... .... ------ : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This first appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 28.08.2020, passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge–cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka, in Land Acquisition Case No. 09 of 2019 whereby and where under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka has ordered that the petitioner- respondent is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,04,93,246/- in Award No.9 and Rs.3,14,14,350/- in Award No.16 and further ordered that the petitioner-respondent is entitled to solatium at the rate of 100% at the enhanced amount of compensation and directed the opposite party-appellant to pay the compensation amount within a period of three months to the petitioner as her husband and son have accorded no objection, if the entire compensation amount is released F.A. No. 87 of 2020 2 in favour of the petitioner-respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar made a reference to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 36/2017-18 which was instituted in connection of acquisition of land and part of six storied building and Show-room situated over an area of 30.084 decimals owned by the petitioner for construction of over bridge between Jasidih and Baidyanathdham Railway Station. The Award No.9 was prepared for Rs.96,335/- in respect of acquisition of land measuring 3.650 decimals (1590 sq. feet) and Award No.16 was prepared for acquisition of 5400 sq. feet of super built up area standing by the side of the main road and 525 sq. feet area of single storied show-room at Rs.92,53,720/-. Being dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer and pursuant thereto reference has been made to the learned court below under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). 4. The case of the petitioner is that the land and building acquired is situated in commercial area of Deoghar Town. The petitioner further contended that she, her husband and son have acquired 12,392 Sq. feet of land vide registered sale deed No. 12909 dated 20.11.1989, registered sale deed No.1280 dated 20.11.1989 and registered gift deed No. 225 dated 20.09.2001. The land in question is Basauri (home stead) transferable land and is situated in commercial F.A. No. 87 of 2020 3 area. The Kanungo has reported that the land in question belongs to the petitioner and her family which is transferable land and the fixed market value of the said land is Rs.28,75,862/- per decimal. In the report of the Kanungo, it has been mentioned that the Collector without following the procedure under Section 26 of the Act and without taking into consideration the rate already fixed by him as per the chart of the Registry Office, Deoghar arbitrarily fixed the rate of the land acquired at Rs.8,32,955/- per decimal. It is the further case of the petitioner that Deoghar Municipal Corporation has been realizing tax at commercial rate from the petitioner and her family. The petitioner and her family members acquired the land to commence their business for their livelihood. In the portion of the land, in the east side parallel to the 70 feet wide road maintained by P.W.D., they constructed substantial and huge construction in two separate blocks leaving only 11 feet wide space between the two blocks for ingress and egress to the residential house coming to the main 70 feet wide P.W.D. road situated in the eastern side. The petitioner and her family members have constructed a multistoried building including basement towards the road side, covering 2400 Sq. feet, the front portion of which is 60 feet long along the P.W.D. Road and 45 feet wide in the back portion. In the ground floor of the above building, two big rooms are constructed and one room is being occupied by the son of the petitioner namely Parveen Sandiliya who is doing personal business in the name and style of ‘Parveen Digi World’ while another room is in possession of a tenant. All the floors i.e. 1st to 4th floor of the building are in possession of different tenants from which the F.A. No. 87 of 2020 4 petitioner is getting monthly rent of Rs.80,000/- including the rent of basement. The petitioner has also constructed another building which is a single storied 20 feet high building, situated by the side of the P.W.D. road and a show-room of M.R.F. Tyre is running there from covering an area of 1382 Sq. feet and the business is run by her son Praveen Sandiliya. The Municipal Corporation is realizing tax at the rate of Rs.85,536/- per annum for the multi-storied building and Rs.7,382/- per annum for the single storied building at commercial rate. The Collector has fixed the rate of Rs.5,302/- per Sq. feet for the road side super built up area and as per calculation 5,400 Sq. feet of super built up area by the road which is multi-storied six floor building and 525 Sq. feet front portion of the single storied building has been acquired. The petitioner prayed to enhance compensation to Rs.2,86,30,800/- for multi storied portion and Rs.27,83,550/- for the built up area acquired in the said single storey building. The petitioner asserted that the authorities without complying the provisions of Section 30 of the Act has fixed and assessed the amount of compensation for the acquired land and building. The 70 feet wide road is commonly known as Circular Road. As per the market value fixed by the Collector, the market value of the land in commercial area by the side of the road is Rs.28,74,862/- per decimal and on the basis of the said value stamp is required to be paid in case of transfer of such land by sale deed. So in the present case, the valuation of 1590 Sq. feet of land would be Rs.1,04,93,244/- but the authorities have calculated the amount of compensation of the acquired land only at the rate of Rs.60.58 per Sq. feet. Thus arriving at a meager F.A. No. 87 of 2020 5 compensation amount of Rs.96,335/-. The petitioner further contended that demolition of the acquired building resulted in the of the business of the petitioner and her family members being ruined and the remaining part of the house of the petitioner has to be reconstructed. Therefore, the petitioner has suffered a loss of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. Thus, it has been prayed to prepare an award for the amount for which the petitioner and her family members are legally entitled to. 5. The opposite party-appellant in their rejoinder-cum-written statement pleaded that determination of valuation of the acquired land and building was made after notice under Section 20 of the Act and the authorities valued and assessed the rate of the acquired land and building on the basis of the record then available with the authorities. It is then pleaded that under such circumstances, the land was assessed as non-transferable land and the value of the acquired land and building of the petitioner was also assessed for nontransferable land but later on, the petitioner for self and on behalf of her husband and son, produced original documents and filed objection, challenging the amount of compensation and rate assessed for the land and building and then only it transpired that actually in the record of right, the acquired plot no. 255, has been recorded as Basauri (home stead) land and from the documents including the land receipts issued by the Deoghar Municipality and Circle Officer, it was established that the actually the acquired land is transferable land. The opposite party also admitted that the rate of the acquired land in question has already been fixed by the Collector since before the day F.A. No. 87 of 2020 6 of notification for acquisition as per the chart available in the Deoghar Registry Office and as per the chart available in the Deoghar Registry Office, the value of transferable land in the commercial area has been fixed at Rs.28,74,862.00/- per decimal and as per chart available at the Deoghar Registry office the valuation of the land existing in the
Legal Reasoning
commercial area is fixed at Rs.6,600/- per Sq. feet. The defendant next pleaded that the market value of the road side built up area is fixed by the Collector at the rate of Rs.5302.00/- per Sq. feet in accordance with the chart available in the Deoghar Registry Office. The opposite party admitted that the front portion of the built up area situated by the side of the road and 525 Sq. feet of front portion of single-storied building has been acquired and thus the area of the acquired land in total, measures to 1590 Sq. feet or 3.650 decimal. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned court below settled the following three issues:- (i) Whether a total area of 1590 sq. ft. of land with part of multi-storied pucca building acquired in this case is situated in commercial area of Deoghar? (ii) Whether the award No. 09 and 16 against compensation of acquired land and part of multi-storied pucca building have been prepared without considering the market value of the acquired property as per provisions of section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013? (iii) Whether the objector/petitioner is entitled to enhancement of the amount of compensation? 7. In support of their case, the petitioner examined three F.A. No. 87 of 2020 7 witnesses and also produced the documents which were marked Ext.1 to 17 and X series to Y series but the opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence but filed the documents which have been marked Ext. A and B. 8. Out of the three witnesses examined by the petitioner, P.W.1 is the petitioner herself. She inter alia supported the averments made in her petition upon which the reference was made. The P.W.1 filed receipts issued by the Municipal Area, Deoghar to prove that the land and building is situated in commercial area and they are also paying rent to the Municipality. She further deposed that the valuation of the acquired land has been fixed at Rs.28,74,862/- per decimal by the collector prior to the notification to acquire the land in question and the awarding of compensation of Rs.96,335/- for the acquired land is erroneous. The P.W.1 further deposed that her built up area is 5400 Sq. feet and 525 Sq. feet respectively which have been acquired by the authorities. The P.W.1 then stated that she and her family members are entitled to Rs.2,86,30,800/- for six storied house and Rs.27,83,550/- for one storied house. The P.W.1 further stated that both her houses are on pillars which will be damaged and the remaining part of the house would have to be built afresh. The P.W.1 further stated that she and her family members are earning Rs.80,000/- per month from the tenants besides her son is running a M.R.F. Tyre Show-room over an area of 1382 Sq. feet and due to demolition his business will be closed and all tenants will have to vacate her property and they will also suffer monetary loss. The P.W.1 has further stated that her family is paying tax against the income which they receive from the building F.A. No. 87 of 2020 8 which has been acquired. P.W.2 –Niranjan Jha is the husband of the P.W.1. He also supported the averments made in the petition of the petitioner and P.W.3 –Prashant Shandilya being the son of the P.W.1 has also supported the averments made in the petition by his mother. 9. Apart from the oral testimony, the petitioner filed documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 17 upon admission by the defendants and two sale deeds have been marked X and X/1 for identification and four photographs of the building have been marked Y to Y/3 for identification. The opposite party filed the copy of the letter along with the photocopies of rate chart of the year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are marked as Ext.A and the photocopy of the certified copy of Parcha of plot no. 255 B of J.B. No. 2/2885 of Mouza – Madarichak No. 256 have been marked Ext.B. 10. The learned court below first took up issue no. i and considering the evidence in the record and also considering the sale deeds and mutation order, basing upon which the admission of the opposite party-respondent regarding the acquisition of 3.650 decimals (1590 Sq. feet) of land of the petitioner and her husband and son under the scheme for construction of R.O.B., relying upon the report of the Kanungo marked Ext.5 and the various agreements executed between the son of the petitioner and tenants marked Ext. 7 to Ext. 7/6 which indicated that the son of the petitioner has entered into agreement with different tenants who were running commercial activities as also the Ext.3 which is the report/information received under the Right to Information Act, came to the conclusion that the acquired property belonging to the petitioner is used for commercial activities and the F.A. No. 87 of 2020 9 land in question is a Basauri Raiyat and concluded that it stands proved that the acquired land and building is situated in commercial area of Deoghar. Thereafter, the learned court below took up issue no.ii and considered that as per the chart available in the Deoghar Registry Office, the valuation of transferable land in commercial area has been fixed at the rate of Rs.28,74,862/- per decimal. The learned court below also resorted to the provisions of Section 26 of the Act which envisages that the Collector shall inter alia assess and determine the market value of any land. The market value, if any, is specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds in the area where the land is situated or the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area and observed that it is obligatory on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector to make an enquiry adopting different methods envisaged under clause (a) to (c) of Section 26 (1) of the Act and to fix the market value at the rate whichever is found higher in the enquiry. The learned court below found fault with the Collector that the land assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer as non-transferable of land and the building of the petitioner was also assessed non-transferable as admitted by the opposite party-appellant in their written statement though in the written statement itself, it was admitted that the land in question was a Basauri land. On the basis of Ext. –A, which is the chart of the Deoghar Registry Office for the period of 2017-18 where valuation of transferable land in commercial area was fixed as Rs.28,74,862/- per decimal but the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar while fixing the compensation to be paid in respect of the acquired F.A. No. 87 of 2020 10 land of 3.650 decimals, failed to consider the category of land and also failed to apply the market rate fixed by the Government. On the basis of the admitted fact that the acquired land in question was a transferable land and situated on main road ‘i.e. Circular Road’ which is a commercial area and as per the rate chart (Ext.A) available, the valuation of transferable land in commercial area was fixed at Rs.28,74,862/- per decimal but the Land Acquisition Officer erred in fixing the compensation at Rs.8,32,955/- per decimal on the erroneous impression that the land acquired is a nontransferable land. Hence, the learned court below assessed the total amount of compensation for acquiring 3.650 decimals of land at Rs.1,04,93,246/- as recommended by the Kanungo whose report has been marked Ext.5 and thus found that the L.A.O., Deoghar passed the Award No.9 without considering the prevalent market rate. The learned court below enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of the 3.650 decimals of land to Rs.1,04,93,246/-. In respect of the valuation of part of six storied building including the basement and one story Show-room having been constructed on a commercial area just parallel to the 70 feet wide main road and the fact that the petitioner and her family members have made huge constructions in two separate blocks and the son of the petitioner is running a M.R.F. Tyre Show-room covering an area of 1382 Sq. feet and paying tax to the Deoghar Municipality and the market rate for deluxe building/apartment situated in commercial area for the period 2017-18 is Rs.5302/- per Sq. feet (Ext.A), the learned court below held that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,86,30,800/-for the multi-storied building and F.A. No. 87 of 2020 11 Rs.27,83,550/- for the single storied M.R.F. Tyre Show-room building and enhanced the compensation accordingly; in the process, keeping in view the admission in the written statement as well as the written notice of argument with the rate and the fixed market value of road side built up area is fixed at the rate of Rs.5302/- per Sq. feet (Ext.A) and it is the admitted case of both the parties that the front portion of the super built up area is situated by the side of the road and 525 Sq. feet front portion of single storied building has been acquired and went on to hold that the compensation to be paid to the petitioner in respect of the six storied building including the basement and one storied Show-room to Rs.3,14,14,350/- in respect of Award No.16. The learned court below next took up issue no. iii and held that besides the said amount of Rs.1,04,93,246/- in Award No.9 and Rs.3,14,14,350/- in Award No.16, the petitioner is also entitled to solatium at the rate of 100% on the enhanced amount of compensation. In the absence of any finding of the Land Acquisition Officer or the report of the engineer, the learned court below turned down the contention of the petitioner for separate compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- in terms of Section 29 of the Act and ordered for payment of the enhanced compensation as already indicated above. 11.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Manoj Kumar –G.A.-III, appearing for the appellant submits that the learned court below misinterpreted the provisions of the Act in arriving at the enhanced compensation. It is next submitted by Mr. Manoj Kumar that Section 26 of the Act entails calculation of the compensation at market price of the land in terms of its unit area and the award by the State Authority was duly made in accordance F.A. No. 87 of 2020 12 with law. It is next submitted by Mr. Manoj Kumar that the impugned judgment and award do not withstand the scrutiny of the Act. Mr. Manoj Kumar next submits that the court below has considered the photocopies of the documents contrary to the provisions of law. 12. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Chhoti and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 396, para -25 of which reads as under:- “25. The High Court said, and in our opinion very rightly, that Ex. 3 could not be regarded as secondary evidence. Section 63 of the Evidence Act mentions five kinds of secondary evidence. Clauses (1), (2) and (3) refer to copies of documents; clause (4) refers to counter-parts of documents and clause (5) refers to oral accounts of the contents of documents. Correctness of certified copies referred to in clause (1) is presumed under Section 79; but that of other copies must be proved by proper evidence. A certified copy of a registered sale deed may be produced as secondary evidence in the absence of the original. But in the present case Ex. 3 is not certified copy. It is just an ordinary copy. There is also no evidence regarding content of the original sale deed. Ex.3 cannot therefore, be considered as secondary evidence. The appellate Court has a right and duty to exclude such evidence.” It is submitted by Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents filed by the petitioner-respondent being not certified copies rather they were ordinary copies, the same ought not have been considered to be secondary evidence by the learned court below. Mr. Manoj Kumar, next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anbari and Others, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 523, wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, F.A. No. 87 of 2020 13 in the facts and circumstances of that case that when the appellant of that case challenged the genuineness of the photocopy of a driving license of the driver produced in a proceeding before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal; that such a photocopy which is objected to, is not sufficient to prove that the driver had a valid driving license, submits that in this case also the photocopies ought not have been marked as Exhibit by the learned court below. Of course it is fairly submitted by Mr. Manoj Kumar that in this case, the opposite party-appellant never challenged the documents which have been marked Exhibit rather with the consent of both the opposite party-appellant and the petitioner-respondent, the same has been marked Exhibit. Mr. Manoj Kumar next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1721, para -9 of which reads as under:- “9. The rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted F.A. No. 87 of 2020 14 without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section. In Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube and Another [1975(4) SCC 664], it was inter alia held as follows: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66 such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of Section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common case of the parties that the present case is not covered by those clauses. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of Section 65, the appellant filed applications on July 4, 1973, before respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed Photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case respondent No. 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy might be got examined from a handwriting expert. The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications. It was however, nowhere stated in the affidavit that the original document of which the Photostat copy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of Respondent No. 1. There was also no other material on the record to indicate the original document was in the possession of respondent No.1. The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the Photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken. Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit denied F.A. No. 87 of 2020 15 being in possession appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the Photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court.” and submits that in case of production of secondary evidence, the contents of the documents cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Manoj Kumar that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned court below be set aside and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar be restored. 13. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned court below. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that the
Decision
learned court below has disposed of the land acquisition reference on the basis of the pleadings of the parties; as has categorically been admitted in the written statement of the opposite party-appellant before the learned court below that the land acquired is situated in a commercial area by the side of 70 feet wide road known as Circular Road. It has also been admitted in the written statement of the opposite party-appellant that as per the chart available with the office of Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, maintained as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the valuation of commercial area is Rs.28,74,862/- per decimal. Similarly on the basis of pleadings of the opposite party wherein, it has been admitted that as per the chart F.A. No. 87 of 2020 16 available in the Deoghar Registry Office, the rate of the land existing in the commercial area is fixed at Rs.6,600/- per Sq. feet and the same has been supported in the report of the Kanungo of L.A. Case No. 36 of 2017-18 which has also been marked Ext.5 and the market value of the road side built up area is fixed by the Collector at the rate of Rs.5302/- per Sq. feet as per the chart available in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Deoghar, compensation for the built up area has been assessed by the learned court below. 14. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Mysore and Others vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, reported in (1963) 2 SCR 943 para -3 of which reads as under:- “3. The sole point for determination in this appeal therefore is whether the procedure adopted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in admitting the statements of witnesses examined before Mr. Mujumdar in evidence is opposed to the rules of natural justice. The question is one of importance, because as appears from the cases which have come before us the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in this case is the one followed by many tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers. For a correct appreciation of the position, it is necessary to repeat what has often been said that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not Courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike Courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure which govern proceedings in Court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair F.A. No. 87 of 2020 17 opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity had been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in Courts.” (Emphasis supplied) Submits that the Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Authority is in the nature of a tribunal, hence with the consent of both the parties, it can admit any evidence in the record and mark the same as exhibit; like in any other civil proceeding and undisputedly, in this case, the documents have been exhibited with the consent of the opposite party-appellant without any objection regarding genuineness of the same and in fact before the learned court below, the opposite party admitted the genuineness of the same and only upon admission of the document concerned by the petitioner, the photocopy produced by the opposite party have also been marked Ext. A & B. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Sinha that no fault could be found with the learned authority having marked the photocopies of the document as Ext. 1 to 17. 15. Mr. Sinha next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin and Others vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, Through its Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office, MTDC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1325, para -26 of which reads as under:- “26. Before closing this matter, we are impelled to observe that the orders passed by the Courts, and particularly by this Court, are required to be understood on their pith and substance while avoiding an approach of technicalities. Moreover, when the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the F.A. No. 87 of 2020 18 land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities. We say no more for the present.” And submits that as the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, therefore if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from the technicalities and the admission by the opposite party-appellant both in its pleadings filed in the shape of written statement as well as by its conduct by consenting for the copy of the documents being marked Ext. 1 to 17, the opposite party- appellant is estopped to raise the hyper technical issue of due process of law having not been followed in admitting the documents in record. It is then submitted by Mr. Sinha that thus the learned authority below having rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of admitted pleadings of the parties, therefore this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 16. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that Section 30 of the Act envisages that the solatium amount equivalent to 100% of the compensation amount be imposed while arriving at the final award and the imposition of solatium at the rate of 100% by the learned authority below is in compliance of Section 30 of the Act. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 17. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination which crop up in this appeal is:- “Whether the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside F.A. No. 87 of 2020 19 for improperly assessing the quantum of compensation?” 18. So far as the contention of the appellant that the copies of the documents have been marked as Exhibit -1 to 17 are concerned, Section 60 of the Act lays down the procedure of the authority, the powers of the authority and the procedure before it. Section 60(3) of the Act envisages that the authority shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act and of any rule made there under, the authority shall have the power to regulate its own procedure and as admittedly the copies of the documents from both the sides have been marked Exhibits on consent when the genuineness of the same was not challenged before the authority and even genuineness of the same are not challenged before this Court also by the appellant, no fault can be found with the learned authority below, so as to interfere with the award prepared by the authority below under the Act on the ground that the same were not properly proved. Moreover, the perusal of the record reveals that the authority under the Act has assessed the compensation on the facts admitted by the parties in their rival pleadings. In no uncertain manner, the opposite party-appellant has admitted in its written statement that the acquired land is situated in a commercial area parallel to a 70 feet wide road known as Circular Road. The opposite party-appellant has admitted that as per the chart maintained as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, the valuation of commercial transferable plots of land is F.A. No. 87 of 2020 20 Rs.28,74,862.00/- per decimal and the rate of the land existing in the commercial area is Rs.6,600/- per Sq. feet and the market value of the road side built up area is Rs.5302/- per Sq. feet in accordance with the chart maintained by the Sub-Registrar, Deoghar. In this appeal also the said fact is not denied. It is not denied that under Section 30 of the Act, 100% solatium is to be imposed. 19. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or error has been committed by the learned authority under the Act. 20. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances, without any costs. 21. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith. 22. In view of disposal of this appeal, all the interlocutory applications are dismissed being infructuous. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 9th February, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)