Jharkhand High Court
Surti Devi And Others vs Deputy Commissioner on 8 April, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F. A. No. 71 of 2015
Surti Devi and Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh and Another
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
---
43/08.04.2025
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Arguments of the Appellants
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
appellants are only aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned trial court with regards to the rate of land at
which compensation has been calculated and the appellants have no
other grievances. He has submitted that the learned court after
considering the evidence on record have come to a clear finding that
the land so acquired was fertile in nature there was irrigation also. The
claimants were growing three crops in a year over the land. It also
appears that the land was of class-I type and the acquired land was
situated in the industrial area. The learned counsel submits that after
having recorded aforesaid findings the learned court considered the
evidences which were produced on behalf of the claimant including
five sale deeds and was of the view that all the transactions involved
in the said sale deeds could not be considered as the sale deeds were
relating to small areas and observed that it is well established that in
determining compensation, the valuation fetched for smaller plot of
land cannot be applied to land covering large area and therefore, it has
been held that the sale deeds produced by the claimants could not be
the basis for compensation.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that if the rate is considered
then the rate upon calculation would be at Rs.25833/-, Rs.18750/-,
Rs.28666/-, Rs.37500/- and Rs.34285/- per decimal with respect to
Exhibit 1 to 1/d respectively. He has submitted that the sale deed
produced from the side of the claimants were dated 6.09.2002,
22.01.2003, 06.06.2003, 28.10.2003 and 17.05.2004 respectively.
4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial
court has also recorded that there was no justification for
categorization of land and that the land was falling within the colliery
and industrial area and was of the view that average flat rate should
have been fixed for all types of land as they were of similar potential
and valuation. However, while fixing the compensation the learned
court has drifted from its own finding and had fixed the rate at
Rs.93,790/- per acre i.e. Rs.937.90/- per decimal by referring to the
rate report Exhibit A.
5. The learned counsel has also submitted that the rate report
Exhibit A referred to classification of land under Dhan-I, Dhan-II,
Dhan-III, Tand-I, Tand-II and Tand-III and the learned court has
awarded compensation at the rate of Tand-II by referring to Exhibit A.
6. The learned counsel has submitted that all the findings with
regard to nature of land and potential of land was decided in favour of
the appellants. The learned court has also observed that an average flat
rate should be fixed for all types of land but has not taken any average
of all the types of land which has been mentioned in the rate chart and
has picked up just one of them instead of taking average. The learned
counsel has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned court is
inconsistent and contrary to its own findings.
7. The learned counsel has also submitted that the record of land
with respect to its nature was prepared 100 years back and the nature
of land which was acquired in the instant case was classified as Tand-
III at that point of time and the rate as per Tand-II has been granted to
the claimant's inspite of recording a specific finding that the claimants
had converted it to class I land.
Arguments of the respondents.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on
the other hand has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the
following judgments: -
i. (1996) 11 SCC 542 paragraph 5
ii. (2005) 4 SCC 789 paragraph 19 and 20
iii. (2010) 5 SCC 708 paragraph 29 and 70
iv. (2017) 8 SCC 558 paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 31
v. 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 351 paragraph 13.
9. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned court has
taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and has enhanced
the compensation. The respondents did not challenge the same as it
was only one piece of land. He has further submitted that if the
evidences and materials are taken into consideration then there was no
need for any enhancement. The learned counsel has also submitted
that one of the sale deeds which was considered in the rate chart i.e.
Exhibit-A was sale deed No. 1788 dated 17.06.2003 which was 82
decimal and the rate was 33,000/- for 82 decimal and therefore rate
would have come only to 402.43/- per decimal but the land acquisition
officer had fixed the rate at Rs.46,895/- per acre i.e Rs.468.95/- per
decimal by taking the nature of land as Tand-III and the learned trial
court has taken the rate as that of Tand-II land by referring to Exhibit
A.
10. Post this case for further dictation on 15th April, 2025 in the
supplementary cause list.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
