Jharkhand High Court
Union Of India vs Sitaram Sahu on 4 July, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:17841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 140 of 2016
Union of India, through the Chief Revenue Officer, CCL, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
(Jharkhand) through its General Manger (Admn.) Sri Gopal Prasad
S/o Late Basudeo Prasad, R/o Jawahar Nagar, P.S.- Gonda, P.O.-
Kanke, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... ... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Sitaram Sahu, son of Sri Basu Sahu;
2. Satyanarayan Prasad Gupta, son of Sri Kanchan Prasad Sahu;
Both residents of Village- Bishrampur, P.O. & P.S.- Khelari, District-
Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate
---
Lastly heard on 06.05.2025
24/04.07.2025
1. This First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated
30.11.2015 passed by learned AJC-I Cum P.O.-Tribunal under CB
Act, Ranchi in Reference Case No.13 of 2001 whereby the learned
Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondents under
Section 17(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 and enhanced the rate of compensation to
Rs.1,000/- per decimal and directed the appellant to pay the same
along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum.
2. The present appeal arises out of Reference Case No.13 of 2001.
The matter arises out of acquisition of land by the appellant- CCL of
the total area 12.02 acres. The notification under Section 9 of Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as "Coal Bearing Act") was issued on
29.12.1976.
3. As per the petition filed by Sitaram Sahu, son of Basu Sahu and
Satyanarayan Prasad Gupta, son of Kanchan Prasad Sahu before the
1
2025:JHHC:17841
learned Tribunal, Ranchi under Section 17(2) of Coal Bearing Act, the
two claimants have stated that the land of 12.02 acres was acquired
jointly in the name of Ram Chander Sahu and Laldeo Sahu and the
claimants are the descendants of Late Laldeo Sahu. Consequently,
they were concerned only with 6.01 acres of land which was half share
of the total acquired land.
4. It was the case of the claimants that the appellant i.e. CCL had
fixed the compensation at Rs.21,431/- for the land to the extent of 6.01
acres which was paid to them vide two cheques dated 23.03.2001 and
30.04.2001. Thereafter, within a short time, they filed the petition
under Section 17(2) of the Coal Bearing Act on 30.05.2001. It was
their case that the CCL offered very low compensation and the
compensation was not in accordance with the market rate of the
property. As per the claimants, the market value should have been
Rs.15 lakhs as the property is situated in industrial belt such as North
Karnpura Coalfields. It was also their case that similar acquisitions
have been done in the vicinity for Tuwang Colliery, Bachra Colliery
and Piparwar project wherein the Courts have fixed compensation @
Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1 lakh per acre. It was their further case that in terms
of the circular dated 12.05.1989, the claimants are also entitled to
receive solatium and higher rate of interest. The petition was filed
seeking enhancement of compensation and also for payment of
solatium @ 30% and higher rate of interest @ 15% from the date of
acquisition of land.
A. Reference to cross objection i.e., C.O. No. 5 of 2016
5. At this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
they have filed a cross-objection to the present First Appeal which was
numbered as C.O. No. 5 of 2016. He submitted that said Cross
Objection has been dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order
dated 20.04.2018 as the defects pointed out by the Office were not
cured. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that they
are taking steps to do the needful with respect to the Cross Objection.
2
2025:JHHC:17841
6. However, the fact remains that till date no application for
restoration of the aforesaid Cross Objection being C.O. No. 5 of 2016
has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that
Cross Objection having been dismissed for non-removal of defects,
still it is open to the respondents to raise the plea in the present
proceedings with regard to claim of solatium and enhanced interest
irrespective of any Cross Objection having been filed and dismissed
for non-removal of defects. The learned counsel has submitted that the
respondents - claimants are entitled to amount of solatium and interest
to the extent of 30% and 15% respectively from the date of acquisition
of land.
8. To this, learned counsel for the appellant has raised serious
objection and has submitted that once the Cross Objection has been
dismissed for default and the respondents have themselves submitted
that they are taking steps for restoration of the Cross Objection,
therefore, such issue may not be decided in the present appeal. If the
Cross Objection is ultimately restored to its original file, then certainly
appropriate order can be passed in the Cross Objection. She has
submitted that the legal recourse to claim solatium and enhanced
interest, as argued by the respondents, is still available.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999
SC 3571 (Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam and others)
(paragraphs 22 and 23) to submit that it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that respondent - defendant, in an appeal can, without
filing cross-objection, attack an adverse finding upon which a decree
in part has been passed against the respondent - defendant for the
purpose of sustaining the decree to the extent the tribunal had
dismissed the suit. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that filing of Cross Objection after 1976 amendment in Civil
Procedure Code is purely optional and not mandatory. Paragraphs 22
and 23 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:
3
2025:JHHC:17841
"22. A similar view was expressed by U.N. Bachawat, J.
in Tej Kumar Jain v. Purshottam [AIR 1981 MP 55] that
after the 1976 Amendment, it was not obligatory to file
cross-objection against an adverse finding. The explanation
merely empowered the respondent to file cross-objections.
23. In our view, the opinion expressed by Mookerjee, J. of
the Calcutta High Court on behalf of the Division Bench
in Nishambhu Jena case [(1984-85) 86 CWN 685] and the
view expressed by U.N. Bachawat, J. in Tej Kumar
case [AIR 1981 MP 55] in the Madhya Pradesh High Court
reflect the correct legal position after the 1976 Amendment.
We hold that the respondent-defendant in an appeal can,
without filing cross-objections attack an adverse finding
upon which a decree in part has been passed against the
respondent, for the purpose of sustaining the decree to the
extent the lower court had dismissed the suit against the
defendant-respondent. The filing of cross-objection, after
the 1976 Amendment is purely optional and not mandatory.
In other words, the law as stated in Venkata Rao case [AIR
1943 Mad 698: ILR 1944 Mad 147 (FB)] by the Madras
Full Bench and Chandre Prabhuji case [Sri Chandre
Prabhuji Jain Temple v. Harikrishna, (1973) 2 SCC 665:
AIR 1973 SC 2565] by this Court is merely clarified by the
1976 Amendment and there is no change in the law after the
amendment."
10. In response to the submissions regarding cross-objection, the
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that filing of Cross
Objection may be optional and not mandatory, but once it is filed and
is dismissed for default, then under such circumstances, the relief, as
was prayed for through Cross Objection, cannot be granted in this
proceeding and for that purpose, the respondents ought to have taken
appropriate steps for restoration of Cross Objection.
B. Arguments on merit of the case regarding rate of compensation
Arguments on behalf of the appellant
11. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of
Sitaram Sahu who was examined as applicant Witness No.1 and
submitted that it has come in his evidence that he had not protested to
the compensation amount while receiving the same and that he
primarily deposed regarding the present status of the acquired land
that it has school, college, etc. in the vicinity of the acquired land. She
2025:JHHC:17841
further referred to the deposition of applicant Witness No.2 namely,
Satyanarayan Prasad Gupta and submitted that though he has stated
that he had received the compensation under protest, but has simply
stated that the acquired land was 5 Kms away from the cement
factory. The learned counsel also submitted that in the evidence, the
applicant Witness No.2 has stated that for acquisition of Bachra
Colliery, compensation was given @ Rs. 1 lakh per acre and the same
is the basis for filing the compensation case seeking enhancement of
compensation.
12. Altogether two witnesses were examined from the side of
CCL. While referring to the evidence of O.P. Witness No.1 examined
on behalf of CCL, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
it is not in dispute that the acquired land falls under village
Bishrampur and notification under Section 4 of Coal Bearing Act was
issued on 21.04.1975. She submitted that this witness has clearly
stated that at the time of acquisition of land, the relevant survey was
also done to find out as to the nature of the land/plots and different
sale-deeds were also considered for fixation of compensation. At that
point of time, the interest, solatium etc., were not payable. She further
submitted that the said witness has deposed that the acquired land did
not fall in industrial area and that the land is far away from other
collieries like Hendegir and Bachra collieries. As per this witness, the
acquired land cannot be compared with the land of the aforesaid
collieries. The aforesaid witness has also stated in his examination-in-
chief that the nature of land is different and, in those lands, the
collieries were established after the acquisition of land involved in the
present case. He has also deposed that at the time of acquisition, the
village Bishrampur involved in this case was in absolute rural location
and there was no sign of any development.
13. The learned counsel also placed the cross-examination of the
aforesaid witness. During cross-examination, O.P. Witness No.1 has
deposed that Bachra Colliery was established prior to 1973 and
Bishrampur is 12 Kms away from Bachra Colliery and there is a pitch
road adjoining to the village Bishrampur which goes to Ranchi. He
2025:JHHC:17841
has also stated in his cross-examination that the collieries namely,
Bachra, Churi, Kedi, Ray, Tumang, Manki and Karkata fall under
North Chandrapura Coalfields and they were all private coalfields
which were nationalized in the year 1973. He has further deposed
during cross-examination that there are collieries around Bishrampur
village which are around 7 to 8 Kms away and declaration under
Section 9 with respect to Bishrampur was made in the year 1976. As
per this witness, he did not participate at the time of preparation of
award. He has deposed that the valuation was done on the basis of
sale-deeds, but could not disclose as to which sale-deeds were taken
into consideration. He has further deposed that the Revenue
Department of CCL undertakes the valuation of the property. He has
further deposed that in the year 1989, a circular has been issued by the
Central Government stating that for acquisition under Coal Bearing
Act, 30% solatium and 15% interest is payable. He has further
deposed that the land in Bishrampur was acquired for K.D. colliery
and K.D. colliery falls under Hesalang Project and in K.D. colliery,
urban facilities are available. He has denied that the work in K.D.
colliery commenced prior to 1973. He has also denied that K.D.
colliery was nationalized in the year 1973.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far as
O.P. Witness No.2 examined on behalf of the appellant- CCL is
concerned, he has also deposed in similar lines and he has clearly
stated that notification under Section 4 was issued on 21.04.1975, the
notification under Section 7 was issued on 27.01.1976 and notification
under Section 9 was issued on 29.12.1976 and these documents were
marked exhibits as Exhibit- A, B and C respectively.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
aforesaid witness has exhibited a document which has been marked as
Exhibit-D which is the statement of land (classification of land) of
village Bishrampur prepared by one Sharda Prasad who was the
Revenue Officer of CCL. During his cross-examination, O.P. Witness
No.2 has stated that the statement was not prepared in his presence
and Khelari is around 3 Kms away from Bishrampur. He has further
2025:JHHC:17841
deposed that in Bishrampur, there is everything like trees, market,
quarters, station, etc.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the
evidence of O.P. Witness No.2, submitted that this witness has
exhibited the document (Exhibit-D) showing the manner in which the
compensation was quantified at the relevant point of time way back in
the year 1976.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
since claimants had raised a grievance with regard to quantum of
compensation, still it was for the claimants to produce the documents
in support of their claim and the onus was heavy on them which they
failed to discharge. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned
judgment has been passed on the basis of Exhibit-1 which is a
judgment in relation to Bachra Colliery for which the land was
acquired way back in the year 1965. She submitted that the judgment
as such could not have been taken into consideration for quantifying
the compensation in the present case and admittedly, Bachra colliery
was around 12 Kms away from Bishrampur village. The learned
counsel also relied upon the order-sheet of the compensation case and
submitted that the order-sheet is accompanied with the compensation
chart. The compensation chart gives the classification of different
categories of land and the rate has also been mentioned therein. The
learned counsel submitted that during the evidence, the witnesses on
behalf of CCL have stated that compensation was prepared on the
basis of sale-deeds, but there is no cross-examination. Learned counsel
for the appellant also submitted that even the computation with respect
to different categories of land has been given.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to following
judgments:
(i) 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 351 (Ramrao Shankar Tapase Vs.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and
others) (paragraphs 13, 13.1 and 13.2)
(ii) (2018) 13 SCC 96 (Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others) (paragraphs 12 to 16)
2025:JHHC:17841
(iii) Judgement passed in F.A. No. 40 of 2007 decided on
10.01.2023 reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 15 (Ajay
Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar/State of
Jharkhand)
(iv) (2013) 14 SCC 50 (Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra) (paragraphs 9 and 10)
(v) (1998) 8 SCC 136 (Kanwar Singh and others Vs. Union of
India) (paragraphs 8 and 9)
(vi) Judgment passed in M.A. No. 502 of 1991(R) decided on
14.09.2018 (Karmi Devi and others Vs. Union of India)
(paragraphs 24, 25, 27, 35, 36 and 37)
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (claimants)
19. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the
witnesses of CCL have stated that the compensation was fixed on the
basis of sale-deeds, but the materials produced before the learned
Tribunal did not include any sale-deed. He further submitted that there
is no reference of any of the sale-deeds in any of the documents
exhibited on behalf of the CCL. The learned counsel further submitted
that in order to assess market value of compensation, the sale-deed
was required to be produced by the CCL as the same was required to
be compared with respect to the acquired land, both in respect of time
and in respect of area and the location involved in the case. In absence
of sale-deed being produced or being referred to in the documents, it
appears that the compensation has been fixed without any basis
whatsoever.
20. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to Exhibit-1
which was in connection with village Bachra and admittedly, the land
in the said case was acquired by issuance of notification under Section
4 which was dated 23.12.1965. The learned counsel submitted that the
distance of village Bishrampur from Bachra as per the evidence of the
witnesses is around 12 Kms and around 7 to 8 Kms from other
collieries. He submitted that considering the time of acquisition and
the location, Exhibit-1 was the closest amongst all and in absence of
any sale-deed having been exhibited on behalf of CCL, the learned
Tribunal has rightly taken Exhibit-1 into consideration for the purpose
of quantification of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that
2025:JHHC:17841
once the Exhibit-1 was produced, the claimants had discharged their
onus in the best possible manner they could have and therefore, the
onus shifted upon the CCL to prove that the compensation was fixed
by taking into consideration other sale-deeds which were closer and
proximate and were relating to similar nature of land as compared to
that of the acquired land.
21. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon Exhibit-
1/A and submitted that in the said judgment passed by this Court, it
has been observed that the previous judgment must be relied upon, but
attending circumstances should also be considered. The said judgment
is in relation to the lands acquired in the year 1986-87 with respect to
the village Tuwang, P.S. Khelari, District- Ranchi.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to Exhibit-
1/B which is an order passed in relation to lands acquired vide
notification of the year 1986 and this order is also relating to village
Tuwang, P.S. Khelari, District- Ranchi. The learned counsel submitted
that the land involved in Exhibit-1 was closest to that of the acquired
land and vide Exhibit-2, the rate was fixed as it stood in the year 1965
and in the present case, the acquisition has taken place around 10
years after the acquisition of the land involved in Exhibit-1. The
Exhibit-1 was much prior in point of time and the claimants have not
gained any additional advantage.
23. Learned counsel for the respondents, with respect to the claim
of solatium and interest, referred to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1998 Patna 100 (Union of
India Vs. Kashinath Mahto) and submitted that in the said case also,
the acquisition was relating to the period prior to issuance of
notification by the Union of India in the year 1989 and in the said
case, solatium to the extent of 30% and interest @ 9% for the first
year and 15% for subsequent years has been granted. The learned
counsel submitted that in the present case, no amount has been
awarded relating to interest and solatium.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following
judgments:
2025:JHHC:17841
(i) AIR 1998 Patna 100 (Union of India Vs. Kashinath Mahto)
(paragraphs 11 and 15)
(ii) (1991) 4 SCC 212 (Narain Das Jain by Lrs. Vs. Agra Nagar
Mahapalika, Agra)
(iii) (2008) 14 SCC 745 (General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel)
(iv) AIR 1988 SC 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer).
Findings of this Court
25. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going
through the records of the case, this Court finds that the lands of the
claimants/respondents measuring a total area of 6.01 acres in several
plots under Khata No.22, Village- Bishrampur, P.S.- Khelari, District-
Ranchi were acquired by the appellant-CCL vide Notification dated
29.12.1976 issued under Section 9(1) of Coal Bearing Act for
Hesalong Project (Colliery). The award was originally prepared in the
name of Bishun Dayal and after his death, the names of the claimants-
respondents were substituted. Appellant-CCL had fixed the
compensation at Rs.21,431/- against 6.01 acres of lands of the
claimants which was paid to them through two cheques dated
23.03.2001 and 30.04.2001. Thereafter, on 30.05.2001, the claimants-
respondents filed a petition under Section 17(2) of the Coal Bearing
Act for enhancement of the compensation and also for solatium @
30% and higher interest @ 15% from the date of acquisition, which
was registered as Reference Case No.13 of 2001.
26. This Court further finds that although the acquisition is of the
year 1976, but the petition was filed in the year 2001 and further, the
claimants received the amount through their bank account on
23.03.2001 and 30.04.2001. The compensation was fixed at
Rs.21,431/- for the acquired land total being 6.01 acres. It was stated
in the petition that the claimants had approached the opposite party
vide an application 26.07.1978 to refer the matter to the tribunal for
fixation of market value of the acquired land. So far as the rate of
compensation is concerned, it was their specific case that the market
value should be Rs.15 lakhs as the property is situated in industrial
2025:JHHC:17841
belt, such as North Karnpura Coalfields. It was also stated by the
claimants that there were other collieries running before
nationalization of the coalmines in the year 1973, such as Rai, Churi,
Dakra, Manki, Karkata, Tuwang, Hendegir, Bachra and Hesalong. It
was also their case that all the collieries are in a block including
Bishrampur and there are all facilities like staff quarters, market,
hospital, pitch road and G.M. Office in village Bishrampur where the
acquired land is located. It was also asserted in Paragraph 12 of the
petition that similar acquisitions have been done in the vicinity for
Tuwang colliery, Bachra colliery and Piparwar Project and the courts
including tribunal had fixed compensation of Rs.90,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh
per acre.
27. A reply was also filed by the opposite parties- CCL and a
specific stand was taken that the land acquired was surveyed and
classified and after considering the sale figure for such land on the
date of notification of land acquisition under Section 4 of the Coal
Bearing Act and keeping in view the provision of Coal Bearing Act,
compensation was fixed and paid to the claimants. Further, a specific
stand was taken that on the date of notification under Section 4, the
collieries and other developments stated in the petition of the
claimants were not in existence. It was also stated that it was not clear
whether the claimants received compensation under protest and it was
for the claimants to prove the same. It was further their stand that the
claimants are required to prove the cost of land, as mentioned in their
petition, by production of sale-deeds in respect of the similarly
situated lands on the date of notification under section 4 of the Coal
Bearing Act.
28. The claimants examined two witnesses in support of their
claims. CW-1 is Sitaram Sahu and CW-2 is Satyanarayan Prasad
Gupta. CW-1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that CCL has
acquired his 6.01 acres of land for excavation of coal and he has been
given compensation of Rs.21,431/-, but the compensation has not been
given at the market rate. He further deposed that his land is in
Bishrampur Village and Bachra colliery, Karkata colliery and Tuwang
2025:JHHC:17841
colliery are adjacent to his village and those collieries have been
running for the last 60-65 years. Bishrampur is a town in which there
is school, college, cement factory, hospital, shopping centre, etc. The
cost of his land is Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and the lands of the vicinity
are being sold on the said rate and the lands of Bishrampur, Bachra
and Tuwang are of the same kind. During cross-examination, he
admitted that he had received the compensation without writing any
objection. He further admitted that he has not filed any document in
respect of sale of lands @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.
29. CW-2 in his examination-in-chief deposed that CCL has
acquired his six acres of land. He was not satisfied with the
compensation paid to him and he should have been given
compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Dakra Colliery is running
since 1972. His land is in town and rural area. He further deposed that
Central School, Khelari cement factory and road are situated adjacent
to his land and Bachra, Piparwar and Churi collieries are situated in
near his land. Bachra colliery is running since 1972 and Piparwar
colliery is running since 1990. His acquired land is adjacent to Bachra
Colliery and CCL has also acquired the lands in Bachra and Piparwar
and his land is adjacent to the lands of Piparwar and Bachra. During
cross-examination, he admitted that his land is situated at a distance of
5 Kms from the cement factory. He also admitted that he has not filed
any document to show the rate for valuation of the acquired lands of
Bachra and Piparwar. He further admitted that he had received the
compensation with objection. He further admitted that the valuation of
the lands of Bachra colliery was made @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and
their basis is the same.
30. The claimants exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit-1 Certified copy of Judgment dated 08.01.2004 passed by
the High Court in FA Nos.237 to 272, 274, 276 to 284 of
1994(R)
Exhibit-1/A Certified copy of Judgment dated 16.09.2004 passed by
the High Court in FA Nos.10, 16 and 17 of 1995(R)
2025:JHHC:17841
Exhibit-1/B Certified copy of Judgment dated 14.10.1993 passed by
the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in Land Acquisition
Case No.51/1993 and analogous cases
Exhibit-1/C Certified copy of order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the
learned L.A. Judge in L.A. Case No.3/1997 (Dama
Bhogta -vs- Collector, Ranchi & Anr.)
Exhibit-2 Award dated 07.01.2010 and Compromise Petition
relating to L.A. Case 01/86-87, Land Reference Case
No.3/1997 (Dama Bhogta -vs- Collector, Ranchi & Anr.)
31. The Opposite Party-CCL also examined two witnesses. OPW-1
is Ajit Kumar Sinha who was posted as the Assistant Revenue Officer,
in the office of the Chief General Manager in North Karanpura Area,
CCL and OPW-2 is Om Prakash Oraon who was posted as Upper
Division Clerk in the office of the Chief General Manager in North
Karanpura Area, CCL.
32. OPW-1 filed his examination-in-chief stating that the acquired
lands of the claimants are situated in Bishrampur Village and when the
notification under Section 4 was published on 21.04.1975, there was
no provision for solatium and higher interest rate. He stated that the
lands of the claimants are not situated in industrial area and are
situated at a far distance from Rai, Hendegir and Bachra Collieries and
therefore, the lands of those villages cannot be compared with the
acquired lands. Those collieries were established after acquisition. He
further stated that at the time of acquisition of the lands, Bishrampur
was a rural area and there was no development. During cross-
examination, he admitted that Bachra Colliery was started by NCDC
before 1973 and the CCL has acquired the land there after 1973.
Bachra is situated at a distance of 12 Kilometers from Bishrampur and
Tandwa-Ranchi Pitch Road has passed adjacent to Bishrampur
Village. He further admitted that Dakra, Churi, Kori, Rai, Tuwang,
Manki, Karkata are situated within North Chandrapura Coalfield
which were earlier private coalfields and were nationalized in 1973.
He further stated at Paragraph 14 that the valuation of the lands of
Bishrampur was made on the basis of sale deed, but he has no
2025:JHHC:17841
knowledge about the said sale deed. He further admitted that the
Central Government had issued a circular on 12.05.1989 for payment
of 30% solatium and 15% interest on the lands acquired under the
C.B. Act. He further admitted that the lands of Bishrampur were
acquired for K.D. Colliery which is situated within the Hesalong
Project.
33. OPW-2 also filed his examination-in-chief stating the same
facts as stated by OPW-1 and he exhibited the following documents
on behalf of the Opposite Party-CCL:
Exhibit-A Notification S.O. 1394 dated 21.04.1975 of the
Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of
Coal published under Section 4(1) of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
Exhibit-B Notification S.O. 681 dated 27.01.1976 of the
Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of
Coal published under Section 7(1) of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
Exhibit-C Notification S.O. 170 dated 29.12.1976 of the
Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of
Coal published under Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
Exhibit-D Statements showing details of the lands of Village-
Bishrampur acquired under Section 9(1) of the Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
Exhibit-E- C.R. (Compensation Report) along with order sheet dated
03.04.1989 passed by CCL in respect of the lands of the
claimants.
During cross-examination, OPW-2 admitted at Para-17 that
Bishrampur is situated at a distance of 3 (three) Kms from Khelari and
the train for transporting coal passes through Bishrampur for going to
Khelari and railway station, cement factory and washery are present
there. He further admitted that market, quarter, station, all are present
in Bishrampur and Bishrampur is an industrial area and all the
facilities of a town are available in Bishrampur. He also admitted that
2025:JHHC:17841
he has not seen any sale deed on the basis of which the valuation of
the land was made. He further admitted that Dakra Colliery is situated
in the north of Bishrampur, Kumang Nawadih Colliery is situated in
the south, Dakra Colliery is situated in the east and Bishrampur is in
the west.
34. This court finds that C.W-1 stated that he did not receive the
compensation under protest and C.W-2 stated that he received the
compensation under protest. The fact remains that the compensation
was received in the year 2001 through cheques and immediately upon
receipt of cheques the petition under section 17(2) of Coal Bearing
Act was filed. At the same time, CCL also did not produce any
document to show from the records as to whether the compensation
was received under protest or not and the endorsement of the
claimants at the time of receipt of cheques have also not been
exhibited. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the objection raised by the appellant-CCL that the
compensation was received without protest and hence the case itself
was not maintainable, is rejected.
35. This Court finds that on behalf of the claimants, altogether two
witnesses were examined. C.W.-1 asserted that Bachra colliery,
Karkata colliery and Tuwang colliery are adjacent to his village and
the said collieries are in existence since last 60 to 65 years;
Bishrampur is a town in which there is school, college, cement
factory, hospital, shopping centre, etc. and the lands of Bishrampur,
Bachra and Tuwang are of the same nature. He had also stated that the
compensation was not paid at the market rate, but he did not file any
document with respect to the sale-deed of the adjoining or nearby
land.
36. So far as C.W.-2 is concerned, he has also stated that Bachra,
Piparwar and Churi colliery are in the vicinity of Bishrampur and
Bachra colliery was running since 1972, Piparwar was running since
1990 and his land is adjacent to Piparwar and Bachra. He has stated
that the cement factory is around 5 Kms away from his land.
2025:JHHC:17841
37. So far as O.P. Witness No.1 is concerned, he has stated that at
the time of acquisition of land, there was no provision for payment of
Solatium and interest at excessive rate and the lands of the claimants
are not within industrial area. He has also stated that Rai, Hendegir
and Bachra collieries are at much distance and at the time of
acquisition, there was no development and the other collieries were
established after acquisition of land of Bishrampur. However, during
his cross-examination, he admitted that Bachra colliery was started by
NCDC before 1973 and CCL had acquired the same after 1973 and in
the instant case the acquisition is of the year 1976. Though he has
stated that Bachra is at a distance of 12 Kms from Bishrampur, but he
has also stated that Bishrampur was located on the pitch road
connecting Tandwa and Ranchi and this also indicates that land in
Bishrampur had locational advantage being adjoining to road
connecting Tandwa and Ranchi. He has also stated that the other
collieries like Dakra, Churi, Rai, Tuwang, Manki, Karkata, etc. were
nationalized in the year 1973 and they are around the village
Bishrampur. He also stated that the land of Bishrampur was acquired
for K.D. colliery. Though this witness stated that compensation was
fixed on the basis of sale-deed, but he could not say on the basis of
which sale-deed it was evaluated.
38. The evidence of O.P. Witness No.1 clearly suggests that the
land acquired is on the pitch road connecting Tandwa and Ranchi and
the collieries which were referred to by the claimants were acquired
by CCL prior to the acquisition of land involved in the present case.
39. This Court also finds that though the opposite party (appellant
herein) stated that compensation was fixed on the basis of sale-deeds,
but they were not in a position to give the details of the sale-deeds
which formed the basis of fixation of compensation against the lands
of the claimants of the present case. Even the documents filed by the
CCL had no reference to any sale deed which could have been the
basis of fixation of rate of compensation.
40. The O.P. Witness No.2 had proved the notifications dated
21.04.1975, 27.01.1976 and 29.12.1976 which were marked as
2025:JHHC:17841
Exhibit- A, B and C respectively and he proved the statement of
classification of land which was marked as Exhibit-D. C.R.
(Compensation Report) was exhibited as public document which was
marked as Exhibit-E and order-sheet dated 03.04.1989 was passed by
CCL in respect of land of claimants Baso Sahu and Kanchan Sahu,
both sons of Late Laldeo Sahu. However, from the perusal of the
documents exhibited from the side of the CCL, none of the documents
revealed as to whether any sale-deed was considered for the purpose
of fixation of compensation and none of the documents referred to any
sale-deed. Admittedly, CCL did not exhibit any sale-deed before the
learned Tribunal to even prima-facie satisfy that the compensation
was fixed on the basis of one or the other sale-deed of the relevant
point of time. The O.P. Witness No.2 in his cross-examination has
stated that Bishrampur is an industrial area acquired for extraction of
coal and all the facilities of the town are available and he had not seen
the sale-deeds etc. on the basis of which the land was evaluated. In
Paragraph-22 of his cross-examination, O.P. Witness No.2 admitted
that in north of Bishrampur, there is Dakra colliery, in south Kumang
Nawadih colliery, in east Dakra Colliery and in the west, it is
Bishrampur.
41. The evidences placed on record clearly reveal that the lands
which were acquired in the present case in the year 1976 were
acquired after the nationalization of other nearby collieries and the
nearby collieries were existing including Bachra colliery. The stand of
the opposite party (appellant herein) that at the time of acquisition, the
other collieries were not existing, is not correct. Further, the acquired
land was located on the pitch road and none other than O.P. Witness
No. 2 admitted in his cross-examination at Paragraph-20 that
Bishrampur was an industrial area and he has also given the details of
the surrounding collieries. The O.P. Witness No.1 claimed in
Paragraph-7 of his evidence that all the collieries were established
after the acquisition of the land involved in this case. Such statement
is clearly falsified by the materials placed on record including the fact
2025:JHHC:17841
that the land which was acquired for Bachra colliery and the
compensation so fixed was relating to the acquisition of the year 1965.
42. The documents which were exhibited from the side of the
claimants included Exhibit-1 which is certified copy of the judgment
in First Appeal Nos.237 of 1994(R) and analogous cases passed by the
High Court on 08.01.2004 which is relating to the acquisition for
Bachra colliery in the year 1965. Section 4 notification in the said case
was dated 23.12.1965. So far as judgment which was exhibited as
Exhibit-1/A is concerned, the same is relating to acquisition of the
year 1986-87 and is certainly relating to the period much after the
acquisition involved in this case. So far as Exhibit-1/B is concerned,
that is a judgment, but the same is also relating to acquisition of the
year 1986 and therefore, the same also has no relevance for the facts
of this case. Exhibit-2 is a compromise petition relating to another
case, which also does not have any relevance.
43. The perusal of Exhibit-1 reveals that the rate fixed was Rs.975/-
per decimal with respect to the land acquired way back in the year
1965. The learned Tribunal considered the Exhibit-1 and fixed the
compensation at a little higher rate of Rs.1,000/- per decimal with
interest of 5% per annum.
44. This Court finds that the land involved in this case certainly had
the positive factor of being in the vicinity of other collieries which
were already in existence at the time of acquisition and were around
the area acquired. Further, the acquired land also had the advantage of
being situated on the pitch road and it has also come in the evidence of
O.P. Witness No.2 that the area was industrial and there was school,
etc. in the vicinity. This Court finds that comparison of the
compensation for the lands of the claimants with compensation fixed
with respect to the property acquired way back in the year 1965 i.e.
around 10 years prior to the date of acquisition involved in the present
case, was certainly disadvantageous to the claimants, but at the same
time, the learned Tribunal while considering the Exhibit-1 has fixed
the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per decimal instead of Rs.975/- per
decimal as fixed vide Exhibit-1. This Court also finds that in absence
2025:JHHC:17841
of any sale deed for comparison from the side of either party, the
nearest evidence which was available for consideration was exhibit-1
and the learned Tribunal has applied its judicial mind and also
considered the materials on record while relying upon exhibit-1 and
fixing the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per decimal instead of Rs.975/-
per decimal as fixed vide Exhibit-1.
45. In the judgment reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 351 (Ramrao
Shankar Tapase Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation and others) (paragraphs 13, 13.1 and 13.2) it has been
held that different market value/compensation can be determined for
different lands located differently in the same village or locality; the
lands abutting the main road or national highway would command a
higher market value; in general there would be difference in the
potentiality of lands situated in two different villages. On the same
point, there is the judgement reported in (1998) 8 SCC 136 (Kanwar
Singh and others Vs. Union of India) (paragraphs 8 and 9).
This court finds that in the present case, the location of the acquired
land is on the pitch road leading to Ranchi and therefore the land has
locational advantage and there is no mechanical application of the
exhibit-1 and in fact exhibit-1 was the only material which could be
referred to determine the adequacy of the compensation awarded or to
arrive at the market value of the acquired property at the time of
acquisition.
46. In (2018) 13 SCC 96 (Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others) (paragraphs 12 to 16) it has been held that
determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of
land and what is the evidence adduced in each case, and compensation
cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment
which has to be considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that. It
has also been held by the Hon'ble Court that the court has to apply the
judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without
due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced
in the case in question. It has been held that the current value reflected by
comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of
2025:JHHC:17841
compensation in such cases and award/judgment relating to an
acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for
determining compensation. It has also been held in paragraph 15 of the
aforesaid judgement that reliance on judgements or awards passed more
than 10 to 12 years back by giving either flat increase or cumulative
increase as per the choice of individual Judge without going into the
factual scenario is not the correct method of determination of
compensation and the said method of determining compensation is
available only when there is absence of sale transaction before issuance
of notification under Section 4 of the Act and for giving annual increase,
evidence should reflect that price of land had appreciated regularly and
did not remain static.
Thus, it has been held in the aforesaid judgment that the previous
award/judgment passed 10 to 12 years back can be relied upon only
when there are no sale deeds for comparison to determine the market
price of the acquired land.
In the present case neither the claimants nor the CCL have produced any
sale deed as example for comparison to determine the market value of
the acquired land and even the documents produced by the CCL did not
reflect any mention of one or the other sale deed and on the face of the
documents produced by the CCL there was no discernable material
which could be the basis for determination of the market value of the
acquired land. In such circumstances, the materials which were under
consideration were only the previous awards/judgements which were
required to be compared with the acquired land to determine the market
value of the land involved in the present case.
47. In the judgement passed in (2013) 14 SCC 50 (Ramanlal
Deochand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra) (paragraphs 9 and 10) it
has been held that it was not open to a Reference Court to determine the
amount of compensation exceeding the amount of compensation
determined in the award of Collector without recording a finding on
consideration of the relevant material therein, that the amount of
compensation determined in the award was inadequate. It has further
been held that the claimant was in the position of a plaintiff on whom lay
the burden of proving his case that the compensation awarded by the
2025:JHHC:17841
Collector was inadequate. It has been held in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
aforesaid judgment as under: -
"9. In Land Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari,
a three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case where the
question that fell for determination was whether it was open
to a Reference Court to determine the amount of
compensation exceeding the amount of compensation
determined in the award without recording a finding on
consideration of the relevant material therein, that the
amount of compensation determined in the award under
Section 11 was inadequate. Answering the question this
Court considered the entire legislative scheme underlying
the Act and clarified that a claimant was in the position of a
plaintiff on whom lay the burden of proving his case that the
compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate. The
following passage in this regard is apposite: (SCC p. 175,
para 7)
"7. When the Collector makes the reference to the
court, he is enjoined by Section 19 to state the
grounds on which he had determined the amount of
compensation if the objection raised as to the
acceptance of award of the Collector under Section
11 by the claimant was as regards the amount of
compensation awarded for the land thereunder.
The Collector has to state the grounds on which he
had determined the amount of compensation where
the objection raised by the claimant in his
application for reference under Section 18 was as
to inadequacy of compensation allowed by the
award under Section 11, as required by sub-section
(2) of Section 18 itself. Therefore, the legislative
scheme contained in Sections 12, 18 and 19 while
on the one hand entitles the claimant not to accept
the award made under Section 11 as to the amount
of compensation determined as payable for his
acquired land and seek a reference to the court for
determination of the amount of compensation
payable for his land, on the other hand requires
him to make good before the court the objection
raised by him as regards the inadequacy of the
amount of compensation allowed for his land under
the award made under Section 11, with a view to
enable the court to determine the amount of
compensation exceeding the amount of
compensation allowed by the award under Section
11, be it by reference to the improbabilities
inherent in the award itself or on the evidence
aliunde adduced by him to that effect. That is why,
the position of a claimant in a reference before
2025:JHHC:17841
the court, is considered to be that of the plaintiff
in a suit requiring him to discharge the initial
burden of proving that the amount of
compensation determined in the award under
Section 11 was inadequate, the same having not
been determined on the basis of relevant material
and by application of correct principles of
valuation, either with reference to the contents of
the award itself or with reference to other evidence
aliunde adduced before the court. Therefore, if the
initial burden of proving that the amount of
compensation allowed in the award of the
Collector was inadequate, is not discharged, the
award of the Collector which is made final and
conclusive evidence under Section 12 as regards
matters contained therein will stand unaffected.
But if the claimant succeeds in proving that the
amount determined under the award of the
Collector was inadequate the burden of proving the
correctness of the award shifts on to the Collector
who has to adduce sufficient evidence in that
behalf to sustain such award. Hence, the court
which is required to decide the reference made to it
under Section 18 of the Act cannot determine the
amount of compensation payable to the claimant
for his land exceeding the amount determined in
the award of the Collector made under Section 11
for the same land, unless it gets over the finality
and conclusive evidentiary value attributed to it
under Section 12, by recording a finding on
consideration of relevant material therein that the
amount of compensation determined under the
award was inadequate for the reasons that weighed
with it." (emphasis supplied)
10. In Major Pakhar Singh Atwal v. State of Punjab also
this Court reiterated the position that a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal
against the award of the LAO. It merely is an offer. The
proceeding before the Reference Court is of such nature
that it places the claimant in the position of a plaintiff and
the Reference Court is akin to a court of original
jurisdiction. The Court observed: (SCC p. 404, para 5)
"5. ... It is now settled law that the award is an
offer and whatever amount was determined by
the Collector is an offer and binds the
Improvement Trust. However, the Collector
also is required to collect the relevant material
and award compensation on the basis of settled
principles of determination of the market value
of an acquired land. The Improvement Trust,
2025:JHHC:17841
therefore, cannot go behind the award made by
the Collector. Reference is not an appeal. It is
an original proceeding. It is for the claimants
to seek the determination of proper
compensation by producing sale deeds and
examining the vendors or the vendees as to
passing of consideration among them, the
nearness of the lands sold to the acquired
lands, similarly of the lands sold and acquired
and also by adduction of other relevant and
acceptable evidence. In this case, for the Court
under Section 18 of the Act, the Tribunal is
constituted. Therefore, if the claimants intend to
seek higher compensation to the acquired land,
the burden is on them to establish by proof that
the compensation granted by the Land
Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they are
entitled to higher compensation. That could be
established only by adduction of evidence of the
comparable sale transactions of the land
acquired or the lands in the neighbourhood
possessed of similar potentiality or advantages.
... No doubt, in the award itself, the Land
Acquisition Officer referred to the sale
transactions. Since the Land Acquisition Officer
is an authority under the Act, he collected the
evidence to determine the compensation as an
offer. Though that award may be a material
evidence to be looked into, but the sale
transactions referred to therein cannot be
relied upon implicitly, if the party seeking
enhancement resists the claim by adducing
evidence independently before the court or the
tribunal. In this case, since no steps were taken
to place the sale transaction referred in the
award, they cannot be evidence. So they can
neither be relied upon nor can be looked into as
evidence." (emphasis supplied)"
In the present case, there was no material from the side of the CCL as
to the basis on which the compensation was fixed, inasmuch as,
neither the award nor the exhibits even referred to any sale deed which
could support the fixation of compensation by the CCL. This court
finds that CCL had fixed the compensation in an ad hoc manner and
without any basis. In such circumstances, the compensation fixed by
CCL was rightly questioned by the claimants. Claimants had
produced materials to claim higher compensation, though admittedly
no sale deed as such was produced by them. The materials produced
by the claimants were the basis of fixation of compensation after
considering the materials on record.
2025:JHHC:17841
48. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Shawal Singh v. Collector (LA)" reported in (2016) 12 SCC
619 in paragraph 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to its
earlier decision where it has been held that determination of
compensation on the basis of guesswork is permissible only if
relevant/sufficient evidence is not available on record.
In the present case, there was no comparable sale deed from the side
of either parties and even the documents produced by CCL regarding
classification of land etc. did not reveal any comparison with one or
the other sale deed and the judgement/award in connection with
acquisition of land in village Bachra (exhibit-1) relating to acquisition
of land in the year 1965 was found to be the nearest evidence for
comparison and since the acquisition in the present case is of the year
1976 the market value of the acquired land has been taken with little
guess work and slight increase.
49. Upon going through the evidences placed on record, this Court
finds no illegality in comparison made by the learned Tribunal with
the rate relating to acquisition of land for Bachra Colliery though
made in the year 1965, as no sale-deed was at all placed before the
learned Tribunal and the documents produced before the Tribunal by
the opposite party (appellant herein) did not refer to any sale-deed at
all, even to prima facie show as to the basis on which the
compensation was fixed by CCL. It was certainly open to the learned
Tribunal to make some guesswork and the only yardstick which was
close to the facts of the case was Exhibit-1 and accordingly, this Court
finds no illegality in the fixation of compensation @ Rs.1,000/- per
decimal with interest of 5% per annum as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
50. So far as the claim of solatium and enhanced interest is
concerned, the learned Tribunal has rejected the same by considering
that the land was acquired in the year 1976 and at the time of
acquisition, there was no provision for payment of solatium and
interest as claimed by the claimants.
2025:JHHC:17841
51. So far as the circular dated 12.05.1989 is concerned, the same
relates to payment of solatium and interest as the corresponding
amendment was made in the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1984,
but in the present case, the land was acquired prior to 1984 and
nothing has been brought on record to suggest that solatium and
interest would also be payable for the land which was acquired prior
to 1984 or that the circular of the central government dated 12.05.1989
was given any retrospective effect.
52. So far as the judgment reported in AIR 1998 PATNA 100
(supra) which has been relied upon by the claimants to claim solatium
and interest is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable on facts.
In the said case, the initial compensation as fixed by the authority
included solatium and interest and payment was also made to the
claimants who received compensation under protest, but no grievance
was ever raised by the authority in connection with payment of
solatium and interest. In such circumstances, the court held that it was
not open to the authorities to challenge the payment of solatium and
interest and observed ".....In such a situation , in my opinion , now
the appellant cannot be allowed to turn back and say that the same is
not payable for the reason that payment of such amount is not
provided under the Act.....". In the present case, no solatium and
interest was fixed at the time of fixation of compensation as at that
point of time, there was no concept of payment of solatium and
interest. The claimants raised their grievance with regard to the
aforesaid solatium and interest in the year 2001 i.e. after expiry of 24
years. The said judgement does not apply to the facts and
circumstances of this case.
53. Further, the said judgement reported in AIR 1998 PATNA 100
(supra) is not an authority on the point as to whether the circular dated
12.05.1989 had a retrospective effect even on acquisition of land way
back in the year 1976. The contents of the circular dated 12.05.1989
have been quoted in the judgement itself which reveal that the same
was issued regarding payment of solatium and enhanced interest for
acquisition of land under the aforesaid Act of 1957 also as there was
2025:JHHC:17841
amendment in Land Acquisition Act in the year 1984 regarding
payment of solatium and enhanced interest which led to disparity in
the matter of grant of compensation under the two enactments. This
court is of the considered view that by no stretch of imagination the
circular dated 12.05.1989 can be applied to the acquisition of the year
1976 and therefore the said circular is of no use to claim solatium and
enhanced interest.
54. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is
of the considered view that the claimants are not entitled for solatium
and enhanced interest. This is over and above the fact that cross-
objection filed by the claimants has already been dismissed for non-
removal of the defects and still the claimants have argued that their
claim be considered as they are otherwise also entitled for just and fair
compensation as per law. In that light, the claim for solatium and
enhanced interest has been considered by this Court and this Court is
of the view that the claimants are not entitled for solatium and
enhanced interest and the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected such
claim.
55. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this First Appeal,
which is hereby dismissed.
56. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
57. There shall be no order as to costs.
58. The office is to prepare decree accordingly.
59. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the concerned
Court/Tribunal through Fax/E-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
