Jharkhand High Court
Most. Sukri Devi And Others vs Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh Now ... on 24 March, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 176 of 2018
Most. Sukri Devi and Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh now Ramgarh and another
... ... Respondents
With
F.A. No. 177 of 2018
With
F.A. No. 179 of 2018
With
F.A. No. 182 of 2018
With
F.A. No. 184 of 2018
With
F.A. No. 159 of 2018
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate
: Mr. S.K. Dey, Advocate
: Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
(In all cases)
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C. I
: Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt(A.C.to S.C. I)
(F.A. 159/18, F.A. No. 176/18,
F.A. No. 184/2018, )
Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey
(A.C. to S.C. (L&C)
For the UOI : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
: Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
---
10/24.03.2025 Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that
F.A. No. 159 of 2018, F.A. No. 176 of 2018, F.A. No. 177 of 2018,
F.A. No. 179 of 2018, F.A. No. 182 of 2018 and F.A. No. 184 of 2018
are arising out of the land Acquisition of village-Kadru and identical
issues are involved in these cases. He has submitted that he would
advance his argument in F.A. No. 176 of 2018 wherein additional
evidence has also been filed being I.A. No. 3455 of 2025. He submits
that the same be considered in the entire batch of matters.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has
submitted that counter affidavit has been filed in only one of the batch
cases i.e. F.A. No. 176 of 2018 and the same may be considered for
the entire batch of cases.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have no objection if the
petition seeking additional evidence in F.A. No. 176 of 2018 is
considered for the entire batch and if the counter affidavit filed in F.A.
No. 176 of 2018 is also considered for the entire batch of cases.
4. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants in all the cases that a large portion of land
measuring 42.20 acres belonging to the appellants of village Kadru
Anchal and P.S. Patratu, P.O. Barkakana, Dist. Ramgarh was acquired
by the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner
Hazaribagh for Railway Department for construction of new railway
line from Koderma to Ranchi via Barkakana vide Notification No. 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing Notification No. 363/Ra
dated 03.04.2003 He has submitted that all these cases arise out of the
same Land Acquisition Case.
5. The learned senior counsel submits that the land losers being
aggrieved by the fixation of compensation by the Collector filed an
application under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act which was
referred to the learned District Judge cum Special Land Acquisition
Judge, and different L.R. Cases were instituted at Hazaribagh for
determination of fair and correct market value of the acquired land
which was later on transferred to Land Acquisition Judge, Ramgarh
due to creation of new District. He has also submitted that after
contest, the learned Civil Judge, II, cum Special Judge, L.R. Cases,
Ramgarh fixed the compensation rent for all types of land at Flat rate
of Rs. 3,000 per decimal with solatium and other benefits as
admissible under the Land Acquisition Act vide impugned judgement
and Award dated 12.12.2017 decree dated 22.12.2017 in L.R. Case
Nos. 72 to 100/12, 240 of 2012 and 241 of 2012. The learned counsel
has submitted that description of L.R. Cases and the corresponding
First Appeal is as under: -
L.R. Case No. First Appeal No.
76 of 2012 159 of 2018
85 of 2012 176 of 2018
82 of 2012 182 of 2018
89 of 2012 177 of 2018
97 of 2012 179 of 2018
98 of 2012 184 of 2018
6. The learned counsel has submitted that all the appellants are
only aggrieved by the rate of compensation with respect to the land
which has been fixed and they have no further grievance in connection
with any construction over the land involved in this case. The learned
counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had
claimed for compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs per acre which comes to Rs.
15,000/- per decimal but the learned Court has fixed the compensation
@ Rs. 3,000 per decimal. The learned counsel has submitted that
different Awards were produced before the learned Court in
connection with different L.R. Cases and the learned court has though
considered the highest rate which was mentioned in the judgment
dated 29.02.2016 (Ext. 4) where the compensation was fixed @ Rs.
8,000 per decimal, but while fixing the compensation @ Rs. 3,000 per
decimal Ext.-4 has also been ignored. He has submitted that the land
of Bujurg Jamira and others were acquired for the same purpose and
the land acquisition Court vide his judgement dated 29.04.2016
(Ext.4) had fixed the compensation @ Rs. 8,000 per decimal.
7. The learned senior counsel has referred to the evidence of the
witnesses produced on behalf of the Opp. party Manoj Kumar who
was appearing on behalf of the Railways and submits that he has
clearly stated in paragraph 20 that the land of Dari dag, Teliyatu,
Bujurg Jamira were simultaneously acquired and the acquisition was
made through single Notification. He has also submitted that in the
evidence at paragraph no. 24 that compensation in connection with
Dari dag, Teliyatu, Bujurg Jamira and Pochra was decided by the
Court and all were acquired for the purposes of railway line. He has
also referred to paragraph no. 26 to submit that all the lands are in
Patratu Circle and in para 27 it has been stated that in all the four
villages, the cultivation of paddy was being done. The learned counsel
has submitted that the learned Court has failed to fix the same
compensation as was made in connection with the land of Bujurg
Jamira as contained in Ext. 4 where compensation was fixed @ Rs.
8,000 per decimal and in an arbitrary manner, the compensation has
been fixed @ Rs. 3,000/- per decimal.
8. The counsel has thereafter referred to the additional evidence
placed before this Court and relied upon the judgment passed in F.A.
No. 145 of 2013 and has submitted that in the said case, the
compensation has been fixed @ Rs. 20,000 per decimal by referring to
the circle rate. The learned counsel has submitted that the judgment
passed by this Court in F.A. No. 145 of 2013 is fully applicable in the
present cases in view of the fact that in the said judgment also, land
was acquired in connection with laying down of railway line and the
acquisition was almost of the same time.
9. The learned counsel has submitted that it is immaterial as to
what the claimants have claimed with respect to the rate of
compensation, it is the duty of the Court to fix fair compensation and
merely because they had claimed compensation @ Rs. 15,000 per
decimal, the same will not be an impediment in fixing the
compensation @ Rs. 15,000 per decimal.
10. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgement passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 paragraph 6
to submit that it has been observed that as per pre-amendment there
was a cap on maximum compensation which could be fixed by the
Court which should not be beyond the claimed amount but the cap
would no longer exists. He has relied upon paragraph 6 and 7 of the
said judgment.
11. He has further relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717 paragraph 11 and 13 to
submit that the compensation in connection with the adjoining village
is to be given in an uniform manner and there is no occasion for the
Reference Court to differentiate between different villages which are
acquired for the same purpose.
12. He has further relied upon judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC
747 paragraph 4 to submits that it is unfair to discriminate between the
land owners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose
of acquisition is the same and is identical and similar, though lying in
different villages.
13. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC
447 paragraph 15 and 16 to submit that the sketch map has been
enclosed herewith to demonstrate that the land involved in the present
case is adjoining to the land which are involved in the other villages in
which the compensation has been fixed @ Rs. 20,000 per decimal by
this court in the aforesaid First Appeal. The learned counsel has
ultimately submitted that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 20,000
per decimal irrespective of the claim of the appellants as made before
the learned Court.
14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on
the other hand has opposed the prayer and has referred to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 13
SCC 96 and has submitted that principles regarding fixation of
compensation has been duly reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which has been earlier fixed in the case of Chiman Lal Hargovind
Das versus Special Land Acquisition, Puna and anr. reported in
(1988) 3 SCC 751. The learned counsel has further submitted that the
learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the sale deed which
had the maximum rate of compensation but considering the fact that
the land is in Tribal area, therefore compensation at the rate of Rs.
3,000 has been fixed instead of Rs. 8,000/-. While referring to the
additional evidence which has been relied upon by the appellants
during the course of hearing which is passed in F.A. No. 145 of 2013,
the learned counsel has submitted that the same does not apply to the
facts and circumstances of this case in as much as in the said case Ext.
4, which was the Circle rate, was not considered and the Circle Rate
was fixed @ Rs. 20,000 to 22,000 and the circle rate was prepared on
17.08.2004 which was just two months before the Notification
published in the Official Gazette. It is submitted that the said circle
rate has no applicability in the present case. In the present case the
circle rate has not been exhibited and the date of notification is of the
year 2003. The learned counsel has also referred to the impugned
order at internal page no. 6 and has submitted that date of Notification
in the present case is 03.04.2003. He has further referred to the
evidence of P.W. 1 and has submitted that P.W. 1 has been duly cross
examined and at paragraph no. 12 he has stated that he received
compensation in the year 2007 and at that time he had filed the case.
In paragraph 16 he has stated that Ramgarh is 8 K.M. away from his
village.
15. The learned counsel has submitted that the compensation fixed
by the learned Court in these case does not call for any interference in
this case.
16. It is just to put on record although a number of orders has been
placed through I.A. No. 3455 of 2025 seeking to adduce additional
evidence in this case but only judgment which has been placed and
harped upon which has been passed in F.A. No. 145 of 2013 during
the course of hearing.
17. As the court's time is over, post these cases for further dictation
tomorrow i.e. 25.03.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
