Jharkhand High Court
Saryu Rajak vs The Deputy Commissionerr on 7 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 95 of 2018
1. Saryu Rajak, age about 50 years, S/o Budhan Ram
2. Sukhdeo Rajak, age about 45 years s/o Budhan Ram
3. Kublal Rajak, age about 40 years all sons of Budham Ram, resident of
Village-Gorhand, P.O & P.S.. Dhanwar, District-Giridih
...... Claimants/Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Commissionerr, Giridih & P.O. & P.S. Giridih
...... Opposite Party/Respondent
Claim Valued- Rs. 63,000,00/-
Award Value- Rs. 32,55,000/-
Appeal Value - Rs. 30,45,000/-
With
F.A. No. 96 of 2018
Most. Kewali Devi, age about 55 years widow of late Sona Ravidas,
resident of village, Gorhand, P.S. & P.O. Dhanwar, District-Giridih
...... Claimants/Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih & P.O. & P.S. Giridih
...... Opposite Party/Respondent
Claim Valued- Rs. 15,00,000/-
Award Value- Rs. 7,75,000/-
Appeal Value - Rs. 7,25,000/-
with
F.A. No. 98 of 2018
Bhikhi Ran Aged about 49 years son of late Bhatu Ram resident of
village-Gorhand, P.S. & P.O. Dhanwar, District-Giridih
.....Claimants/Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih of P.O. & P.S. & District Giridih
...... Opposite Party/Respondent
Claim Valued- Rs. 64,50,00/-
Award Value- Rs. 33,32, 500/-
Appeal Value - Rs. 31,17,500/-
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar , Advocate
2
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhay Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, S.C. Mines I
Mr. Diva Kant Roy, A.C. to S.C. (Mines I)
----------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 04.10.2023 Pronounced On: 07.12.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. All the above appeals arising out of common Judgment/Award, hence
they are being taken together for hearing and disposal simultaneously. The
appellants have preferred present appeals under Section 54 of the land
acquisition Act, 1894 for setting aside the judgment dated 22nd December,
2017 in land acquisition reference case nos. 14/15, 15/15 & 16/15.
Background of these cases
3. The State Government through Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Tenughat Project, Hazaribagh, vide mutation no. 24/2010-11 initiated
proceeding for acquisition of land falling under village Gorhand, P.S.
Dhanwar, District- Giridih appertaining to different khatas and plots
admeasuring total 4.75 areas for construction of Panchkhero Jalashay
Project. These awards prepared in the name of claimants by the special
land acquisition officer, Tenughat Project, District Hazaribagh are being
shown in the tabular chart as under:-
Sl. Reference Khata/Plot Type Name of Award Area Award value
No Case no. No. of Awardee No.
land
.
1. L.A. 68/1239 Tand Saryu 2 2.10 37,22,593-
Reference Rajak acre 00
Case No.
2. L.A. 68/167 Tand Most. 1 0.50 8,86,331.69
Reference Kebali acre
Case Devi
3. L.A. 68/1239 Tand Bhikhi 3 2.15 38,11.226.2
Reference Ram acre 6
Case
The beneficiary have received the above awarded amount under protest,
accordingly matter was referred to competent court for settlement of
compensation amount.
In order to substantiate their case for enhancement of compensation
amount the appellants have examined altogether four oral witnesses and
also adduced following documentary evidence.
Exhibit1 certified copy of sale deed no. 1949, dated 19.05.2011,
exhibit 1(a) certified copy of sale deed no. 2065, dated 23.05.2011,
exhibit 1(b) certified copy of sale deed no. 2508 dated 14.06.2011,
exhibit 1(c) certified copy of sale deed no. 3864 dated 25.05.2011,
exhibit 1(d) certified copy of sale deed no. 300 dated 25.01.2012,
exhibit 1(e) certified copy of sale deed no. 673 dated 17.04.2012,
4. On behalf of State/opposite party also two oral witnesses were
examined and following documents were adduced in favouurs:
Exhibit (A) Attested photocopy of order sheet
Exhibit (B) Attested photocopy of Collector award
Exhibit (C) Attested photocopy of valuation khatiyan
Exhibit (D) Attested photocopy of letter no.338/210, dated 08/04/2011 of
Revenue Department Jharkhand, Ranchi
Exhibit (E) Attested photocopy of estimate
Exhibit (F) Attested photocopy of rate report
Exhibit (G) Attested photocopy of sale chart
5. The learned court below after analyzing and scanning the oral as
well as documentary evince adduced in the land acquisition reference case
and also taking into consideration the various guidelines propounded by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of determination of compensation
amount in cases of land acquisition, such as:- Union of India v. Pramod
Gupta (D) by LRs & Ors reported in AIR 2005 SC 3708, Maj. Gen. Kapil
Mehra vs Union of India (UOI) reported in 2015(2) JLJR 237 S.C. &
Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. reported in
(2010)11 SCC 581 arrived at conclusion that the verge of said 5 sale deeds
(exhibit (1) series) comes to Rs. 31,000/- per decimal. It was also observed
that as per guidelines through Government letter exhibit (D), if the land is
taken for the purpose of project and is of same nature then the flat rate
should be given to the awardees. As a matter of caution, the learned court
below while deciding the market value of the acquired land has held at para
25 and 26 of the judgment as under:-
25......... According to the reference itself in column 8 it is
indicated that the land acquisition officer has given the compensation of
the land acquired on the basis of prescribed rate of State Government,
whereas in all probabilities the land acquired of a party has to be given
compensation equivalent to the market value, which is different from
prescribed rate of State for registration of sale deed. It appears that scale
adopted by the land acquisition officer for deciding the compensation of the
land in question is not in consonance with the provision of the Land
Acquisition Act and on going through the said registered sale deed exhibit
1 to 1(e), I would like to say that these sale deeds have been executed for
the small piece of land. Therefore, the consideration amount of those sale
deed cannot be given as a compensation for the land acquired as the land
acquired is of a big chunk. I therefore feel that it is a matter of common
experience when a land of small piece is transacted the parties normally
agrees to give higher rate of consideration as compared to the suit land, it
is a big chunk. So far deciding the compensation of the acquired land with a
caution of reducing the average price by a margin of 50 per cent as the
land acquired is of a big chunk, whereas the land under the sale deed is of
small seize. Thus on going through the above conclusion and exercise as
indicated above, the averaging price of the five sale deeds is 31,086 as
round of Rs. 31,000/- per decimal and if the same is reduced by 50 % to
make it more logical and reasonable then it comes to Rs. 15,500/- per
decimal, I think that the market value of the land acquired under the Land
Acquisition proceeding under the reference ought to have been Rs. 15,500/-
per decimal.
26.......Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to get market value of
land acquired at the rate of 15,500/- per decimal along with solatium as
admissible under the Act and interest thereon as well as other monetary
benefits.
6. Assailing the impugned Judgment/Award, the learned counsel for
the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned court below has come
to definite conclusion after weighing the evidence available on record that
the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 31,000/- per decimal then the
curtailment of market value to the tune of 50 % only on account of land is a
big chunk is arbitrary and devoid of any valid reasons. The appellants are
entitled for compensation at the rate of 30,000/- per decimal besides the
statutory benefits as provided under the Act.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents refuting the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and referring
exhibited documents on behalf of the State (Exhibit A to Exhibit G)
submitted that the Government rate was fixed on query and prevailing
market rate and also considering the sale deeds, it was big chunk of land
measuring 4.75 acres, hence, the rate of Rs. 12,14,153 (Twelve Lakhs
Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Fifty Three) per acres was fixed and also
award to a solatium etc was also covered and total award of Rs. 84,20,579/-
(Eighty Four Lacs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Nine) for the
total area was fixed and awarded in the favour of applicants/appellants. The
awarded compensation amount is fair and reasonable at the time of
acquisition of lands. It is further submitted that for the purpose of
development, charges are reasonable to be deducted from the compensation
amount hence, there is no illegality of infirmity in the impugned
Judgment/Award calling for any interference. This appeal is devoid of
merits and fit to be dismissed.
8. On the basis of contentions of both the parties the sole point emerges
for determination in this appeal is "whether 50 per cent deduction of the
market value of the property only on account of acquisition of big chunk of
land is justified under law?"
9. Before imparting judgment on above point, it is fit to discuss some
principles of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court as guidelines in the
matter of assessment of fair compensation in case of land acquisition. In the
case of Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1 it was observed
in para 25 by Hon'ble Apex Court that "The best method, as is well known,
would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of
the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take
recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible therefore
inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions
of lands made in the same village and / or neighbouring villages. Such a
judgment and award, in absence of any other evidence like deed of sale,
report of expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary
value."
In the case of Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India
(UOI) & Anr. reported in 2015(2) SCC 262, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the land
acquisition officer is required to keep in mind the existing geographical
situation of land, existing use of the land, already available advantages, like
proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area; and
market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or
adjacent or very near to the acquired land. The market value is determined
with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the
neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date
of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market
value."
10. In the case of Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh
& Ors. reported in (2010)11 SCC 581, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
in para 7 that "The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued
uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands
have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land
acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or
to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances."
11. On the point of deduction the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken
consistent view that one third deduction is permissible towards development
cost at the time of valuation of the acquired land to be used for roads, drains,
and other facilities, subject to certain variations depending upon its nature,
location, extent and development around the area. Further, appropriate
deduction needs to be made for development cost, laying roads, erection of
electricity lines depending upon the location of the acquired land and the
development that has taken place around the area. In the case of Sabhia
Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by LRS. and Ors. vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors., (2012) 7 SCC 595, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 19 held as under:-
"19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is
undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved
deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except
when no development is required to be made for implementation of the
public purpose for which land in acquired in Kasturi vs. State of
Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, the court held:-
"7....... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or
undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or
commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has
to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the
acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature,
location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the
area required for road and other civic amenities to develop the land
so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A
land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or
hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making
construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed
area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-
lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses
that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant
who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is
required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the
basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the
absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his
land is a developed area, is not enough, particularly when the extent
of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land
is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the
land the character or a developed area....."
12. In the instant case, admittedly the land acquired is of the nature of
Tand land used for agriculture purpose, the sole purpose of acquisition of
land is for development of pond for agricultural and commercial purposes.
The learned court below after considering the overall oral and documentary
evidence arrived at definite conclusion that the prevalent market rate of
acquired land was Rs. 31,000/- per decimal. For construction of pond no
considerable development is required as such view taken by the learned
court below for reducing the 50 % amount of market value only on account
of big chunk of land does not stand reason.
13. Considering the guidelines propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court
as discussed above the consistent view of deduction of 1/3rd valuation
towards development charge appears to be just and reasonable in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. The land acquired in this case belongs
to different claimants having different shares in the acquired land as such
taking into consideration the settled legal position, the assessment of market
value arrived at by the learned court below is Rs. 31,000/- per decimal is
hereby confirmed but the deduction of 50 % is substituted by 30 % towards
development charges which comes to Rs. 21,000/- per decimal.
14. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, these appeals are
allowed with direction that the impugned Judgment/Award is modified to
the extent that the appellants shall be entitled for the market value of land
acquired Rs. 21,000/- per decimal. Accordingly, award be prepared and
respondents are directed to pay balance amount of compensation with
interest @ 6 % per annum to the appellants within three months from the
date of this order.
15. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Rajnish/A.F.R.
