Jharkhand High Court
Managing Director vs Md. Aarif on 30 November, 2023
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 91 of 2009
------
Managing Director, Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority, Ranchi
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Md. Aarif
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag .... .... .... Respondents
WITH
F.A. No. 40 of 2010
------
The Managing Director, Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority, Ranchi
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Rameshwar Chamar
2. Nageshwar Chamar
3. Iswari Chamar
4. Hira Ravidas
5. Punit Ravidas
6. Mahendra Ravidas
7. Jageshwar Chamar
8. Suresh Chamar
9. Parmeshwar Chamar
10. Bhuneshwar Ravidas
11. Ganesh Ravidas
12. Gajo Chamar
13. Laldhari Chamar
14. Bateshwar Chamar .... .... .... Respondents
WITH
------
The Managing Director, Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority, Ranchi
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jageshwar Chamar
2. Suresh Chamar
3. Parmeshwar Chamar
4. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.P. Shah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C. Mines-I
Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, A.C. to S.C. Mines-I
(In F.A. No.91 of 2009)
Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, A.C. to G.P. V
(In F.A. No.40 of 2010 & F.A. No.41 of 2010)
For Res.No.1 : Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, Advocate (In F.A. No.91 of 2009)
For the Respondents : Mr. Ramavatar Choubey, Advocate
(In F.A. No.40 of 2010 & F.A. No.41 of 2010)
------
Order No.22 / Dated : 30.11.2023
All these First Appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by Sub
Judge-II cum Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh in L.R. No.52 of 2002, L.R.
No.68 of 2002 and L.R. No.89 of 2002 arising out of L.A. Case No.1/1992-93.
2. The land measuring an area 221.80 acres had been acquired in Village
Konara, P.S. Barhi by the State authority for RIADA and the award was made after
completing process of land acquisition.
3. The objector/petitioner raised objections before the concerned Department
with regard to rate on which compensation was assessed. It was averred that the area
had been commercialized which had been considered while assessment of
compensation.
4. On notice, opposite party no.2 did not appear before the learned Court
below and the case was contested by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh who
was impleaded as opposite party no.1.
5. After adjudicating the dispute, the rate of compensation was raised from
Rs.1280/- to Rs.1618/- per decimal.
6. The award has been impugned on the ground that the instant appeal has
been preferred by Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (RIADA) inter alia
on the ground that flat rate of compensation has been awarded without considering
the fact that land acquired where of different nature and category. Different
categories of land were namely Dhan-I, & II and Tanr-I, II & III, but the
compensation has not been fixed considering the nature of land.
7. Learned counsel on behalf of respondents submits that the learned Court
below after discussing the evidence at length, has given correct finding regarding
assessment of compensation taking average rate of the land and other evidence on
record. It is argued that the compensation that had been originally assessed in the
Acquisition case, was also on a flat rate and different rates had not been awarded
with respect to the different categories of lands. Practically, since all the plots are
located in the same area therefore, it will not be feasible to have separate rates for
each of the lands.
8. The main question for determination before this Court is whether the
award under challenge suffers from infirmity in assessment of compensation
considering the category and nature of land?
9. From the judgment of the learned Court below, it is apparent that evidence
was laid on behalf of both sides. In the oral evidence led on behalf of
objectors/petitioners, it was specifically stated that the land was situated near the
G.T. Road and also national highway passing was by its side. The oral evidence that
in the area school, university and petrol pumps were situated, was not controverted
in the cross-examination. Exhibit C was the rate of sale of land of the area which
was of the year 1995. The learned Court below has assigned specific reason for
computing that assessment of Rs.1280/- per decimal which was only for Dhan-I type
of land. From Exhibit 1, which was sale deed executed in the year 1990 it appears
that the rate of land came to Rs.6758.62 per decimal. The average rate has been
computed on the basis of documentary evidence adduced on behalf of Deputy
Commissioner being Exhibit C. On these materials, this Court does find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment and award.
I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the finding of facts
recorded by the learned Court below.
All the three First Appeals, are accordingly, dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
