Jharkhand High Court
Mostt. Sukri Devi (Dead ) vs Deputy Commissioner on 25 March, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025: JHHC: 10193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 176 of 2018
1. Mostt. Sukri Devi (Dead )
1(a) Shiv Narayan Bedia, age about 36 years
1(b) Minu Bedia, age about 35 years
2. Mukhlal Bedia, age about 40 years
3. Sukhlal Bedia, age about 35 years
Sl. No. 2 & 3 son of Late Gansu Bedia
All residents of Village-Karru, P.S. Patratu, P.O.-Barkakana, District-
Ramgarh. ... ... Appellant(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.
Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.-
Barkakana, P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties
With
F.A. No. 159 of 2018
1. Badhan Bedia, age about 40 years
2. Jivlal Bedia, age about 37 years
Both Son of Late Kushla Bedia, resident of village-Karru, P.S. Patratu,
P.O. Naya Nagar, Barkakana, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Appellant(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
3. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.
Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
4. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.-
Barkakana, P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties
With
F.A. No. 177 of 2018
1
2025: JHHC: 10193
1. Dhaneshwar Karmali, age about 33 years, Son of Late Bhuglu Karmali
2. Binod Karmali, age about 35 years
3. Sunila @ Sunil Karmali, age about 31 years
Sl. No. 2 & 3, Son of Late Desai Karmali, all residents of Village-
Karru, P.S. Patratu, P.O. Barkakana, District Ramgarh.
... ... Appellant(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.
Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.-
Barkakana, P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties
With
F.A. No. 179 of 2018
1. Birja Bedia, age about 27 years
2. Shivcharan Bedia, age about 25 years
3. Bijay Bedia, age about 21 years
All grandsons of Late Chamar Bedia,
All residents of Village-Karru, P.S. Patratu, P.O.-Barkakana, District-
Ramgarh. ... ... Appellant(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now
Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.-
Barkakana, P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
3. Gobardhan Bedia
4. Mitra Bedia
5. Sohrai
6. Bandhan Bedia
3 to 6 grandsons of Late Chamar Bedia
3 to 6 residents of Village-Karru, P.O. Patratu, P.O. Barkakana,
District-Ramgarh.
2
2025: JHHC: 10193
... ... Petitioners/Awardees/Performa Respondents
With
F.A. No. 182 of 2018
1. Most. Rathiya Devi, age about 58 years, Wife of Late Bandhan Bedia
2. Asharam Bedia, age about 30 years
3. Jairam Bedia, age about 23 years, both Son of Late Bandhan Bedia
4. Dhania Bedia, age about 27 years
5. Bala Bedia, age about 25 years
6. Bodhan Bedia, age about 23 years
4 to 6 Sons of Late Biglaha Bedia
7. Surji Kumari, age about 24 years, daughter of Late Mania Bedia
8. Bihari Bedia, age about 27 years
9. Bhikhari Bedia, age about 25 years
10. Angua Bedia, age about 24 years
11.Krishna Bedia, age about 23 years
Sl. No. 8 to 11 Sons of Late Mohrai Bedia
All residents of Village-Karru, P.S.-Patratu, P.O.-Naya Nagar,
Barkakana, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Appellant(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.-
Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.-
Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties
3. Sihsan Bedia, Son of Late Mohrai Bedia
4. Jogender Bedia, Son of Late Sariya Bedia
All residents of Village Karru, P.S.-Patratu, P.O-Naya Nagar,
Barkakana, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Petitioners/Awardees/Performa Respondent
With
3
2025: JHHC: 10193
F.A. No. 184 of 2018
1. Shivcharan Bedia, age about 38 years, son of Late Puswa @ Bansu
2. Vijay Bedia, age about 40 years, son of Late Mahadeo Bedia
3. Birja Bedia, age about 32 years, son of Jethu Bedia
All residents of Village-Karru, P.S.-Patratu, P.O.-Barkakana, District-
Ramgarh. ... ... Appellant(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.
Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.
Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties
3. Mitra Bedia, son of Late Ramlal Bedia
4. Bandhan Bedia
5. Sohrai Bedia
Sl. No. 4 and 5 sons of Late Panuwa Bedia
6. Gobardhan Bedia, son of Late Rohan Bedia
7. Madhuwa Bedia
8. Nagwa @ Jagwa Bedia
Sl. No. 7 and 8 sons of Late Ramdhan Bedia
Sl. No. 3 to 8 respondents of Village-Karru, P.S. Patratu, P.O.-
Barkakana, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Petitioners/Awardees/Performa Respondents
---
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,
2025: JHHC: 10193
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
---
th
11/25 March 2025
1. F.A. No. 176 of 2018 has been filed challenging the judgment dated
12.12.2017 (award sealed and signed on 22.12.2017) passed by the
learned Sr. Civil Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, L.R. Cases, Ramgarh in
L.R. Case No. 85/12 whereby the learned court has awarded less
compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per decimal for all classes of land to the
appellants. The appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal for
enhancement of compensation @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimal for all classes of
land. The operative portion of the impugned judgement is as under: -
"14. In my view the different rates are not justified. Considering
the development of all these surrounding areas as well as
industries of the area, I am of the view that the rate fixed by the
collector is very low and it is totally unjustified. So I am of the
view that the compensation rate should be Rs. 3000/- per decimal.
So all the petitioners shall be entitled to get compensation at the
rate of Rs. 3000/- per decimal. Further they shall be also entitled
for solatium and other benefit as admissible under the Act. So in
result this petition is allowed. There is no order as to cost."
2. 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-Karru and identical issues are
involved in all 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 through I.A. No. 3455 of 2025. He submits that the additional
evidence be considered for the entire batch of matters.
2025: JHHC: 10193
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has also
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.
4. The learned counsels 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. Thus I.A. No. 3455 of 2025
and counter affidavit filed in F.A. No. 176 of 2018 will be considered for
the entire batch of the aforesaid cases.
5. 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 Karru 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.
6. The learned senior counsel submits that the land losers being
aggrieved by the fixation of compensation by the Collector filed
applications under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which were 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. The cases were transferred to
Land Acquisition Judge, Ramgarh due to creation of new District. After
contest, the compensation for all types of land was fixed at Flat rate of Rs.
3,000 per decimal with solatium and other benefits as admissible under
the Land Acquisition Act vide common impugned judgement and Award
dated 12.12.2017 and then accordingly decrees were prepared in different
2025: JHHC: 10193
cases and the L.R. Cases and the corresponding First Appeals are as
under: -
Land Reference 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
7. The appellants had claimed compensation @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 senior counsel
has submitted that all the appellants are only aggrieved by the rate of
compensation with respect to the land and they have no further grievance
in connection with any construction over the land involved in this case,
area etc.
8. The learned senior counsel has submitted that different Awards
were produced before the learned Court in connection with different L.R.
Cases and the learned court though has 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 compensation was
fixed @ Rs. 3,000 per decimal and ultimately, 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 in the matter
of land of Bujurg Jamira vide his judgement dated 29.04.2016 (Ext.4) had
fixed the compensation @ Rs. 8,000 per decimal.
9. 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
2025: JHHC: 10193
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.
10. 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.
11. 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
have claimed compensation @ Rs. 8,000 per decimal before this court, the
same will not be an impediment in fixing the compensation @ Rs. 20,000
per decimal. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgement passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 paragraph 6
and 7 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
2025: JHHC: 10193
which should not be beyond the claimed amount but the cap would no
longer exists.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents 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 have
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 submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken into
consideration the sale deed which had the maximum rate of compensation
2025: JHHC: 10193
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/.
16. 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 the Circle rate was not considered by the trial court , though
exhibited, and as per the records the circle rate was Rs. 20,000 to 22,000
per decimal and the circle rate was prepared on 17.08.2004 which was just
two months before the Notification published in the Official Gazette in the
said case. It is submitted that the circle rate exhibited in another case has
no applicability in the present case. In the present case the circle rate has
not been exhibited and the date of notification is also different, that is of
the year 2003. The learned counsel has also referred to the impugned
judgement at internal page no. 6 and has submitted that date of
Notification in the present case is 03.04.2003.
17. 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 had 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.
18. 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.
19. It is just to put on record although a number of orders have been
placed through I.A. No. 3455 of 2025 seeking to adduce additional
evidence in this case but only the aforesaid judgment passed in F.A. No.
145 of 2013 has been harped during the course of hearing which has the
maximum rate of compensation.
20. The sole point for determination in the present case is as to
whether the learned trial court is justified in fixing the fair market price
2025: JHHC: 10193
of the land, all failing in Village Karru, @ Rs. 3,000/- per decimal and
whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.
21. It is not in dispute that large chunk of land including the land
involved in these cases was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1854
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1854') vide notification No.
363/Ra dated 03.04.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1854 which
was followed by quantification of compensation by the concerned
authorities and the land losers received compensation under protest on
11.01.2007. On the application of the appellants, the cases were referred
to the Collector, Ramgarh under Section 18 of the Act of 1854. The
details of land bearing in various plots have been given in paragraph 2 of
the impugned judgment which is not in dispute and these batch of cases
are from Village Karru within Patratu Police Station under the then
District of Hazaribagh and now falling under the District of Ramgarh
which was acquired for construction of Railway line. The records reveal
that the claimants claimed compensation @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre and
examined two witnesses P.W.-1 Bandhan Bedia and P.W. 2 Prayag Bedia
and produced the following exhibits: -
Exhibit Lists:
Ext.1: C.C. of judgment of L.R. Case No. 1/10 to 24/10
Ext. 2 : Award of L.R. Case No. 01/2010
Ext. 2/a : Award of L.R. Case No. 05/2010
Ext. 3 : Rate report of L.A. Case No. 20/04-05
Ext. 4 : C.C. of judgment of L.R. Case No. 54-71/12,
169-187/12,
227-230/12, 245/12, 246-251/12.
Ext. 4/a : C.C. of judgment of L.R. Case No. 188-
201/12.
Ext. 4/b : C.C. of judgment of L.R. Case No. 101-
137/12, 235/12 & 237/12
Ext. 5 : C.C. of Anchal Map.
2025: JHHC: 10193
22. The opposite parties examined only one witness, namely, Manoj
Kumar as opposite party witness No. 1 and no documentary evidence was
produced.
23. The specific case of the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation was that the market value fixed by the Collector in
connection with acquired land was not in accordance with the prevailing
market rate at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act and the acquired land have changed the nature and was fit
for construction of building and the market rate was not less than Rs.
15,00,000/- per acre. The classification in connection with the land was
also challenged and it was asserted that the acquired land was within
Ramgarh Cantt and its surrounding is available with all facilities such as
pitch road, electricity, water and good commercial activity. It was also
asserted that for similar lands, which were acquired in the year 1986 for
defence activities, the court had fixed compensation @ Rs. 2.5 lakhs per
acre which was confirmed by the High Court in appeal. It was also
asserted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from
the year 1986 to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 10% per year should have granted as appreciation to the
value of land. However, from the exhibit list, it is apparent that no award
in connection with acquisition of the year 1986 was exhibited by the
claimants.
24. The records reveal that so far as Exhibit-4 is concerned, the same
was in relation to village Bujurg Jamira and the award was passed on
29.02.2016 wherein the court had recorded that the valuation of the land
should be fixed not according to agricultural classification considering the
fact that there was effective commercial, social and communication
development in and around the vicinity of the acquired land in the District
of Ramgarh. The land so acquired which was subject matter of
consideration in exhibit-4 was also regarding acquisition for railways and
compensation was fixed @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimal.
2025: JHHC: 10193
25. However, vide exhibit 4/a in relation to village Daridag the
compensation was fixed @ Rs. 6,000/- per decimal and vide exhibit 4/b
which was in relation to village Teliyatu the compensation was fixed @
Rs. 7,000/- per decimal. All the compensation were fixed at flat rate with
respect to each village. The Exhibit-5 is the map of Patratu anchal in
district Ramgarh and the villages, namely, Bujurg Jamira and Teliyatu are
adjoining to each other and, Daridag, Kodi and Karru and Masmohana are
shown as adjacent to each other and Karru is nearer to Ramgarh as
compared to Masmohana and also has a long boundary with masmohana.
The learned trial court while considering the various exhibits has in
particular referred to exhibit-4 whereby the compensation was fixed @
Rs. 8,000/- per decimal with respect to Bujurg Jamira.
26. This Court finds from the impugned judgment that the learned trial
court after considering the materials on record has recorded that on
account of effective economic, social and communication, importance of
the lands under acquisition has considerably increased and on the basis of
evidence on record, the learned trial court found that the Ramgarh town is
situated is adjacent to land in question and accordingly, its valuation
should be fixed by the court not according to the agricultural classification
which was wrongly done by the Collector under the Act. The aforesaid
findings of the impugned judgment have not been challenged by the
respondents by filing any cross appeal or cross objection.
27. The findings of the learned Sub-Judge-II-Special Judge, L.R. Case,
Ramgarh are as under:
"12. On account of the effective economic, social and
communication development, importance of the lands under
acquisition, which are within vicinity of the area of the
cantonment has considerably increased. On the basis of
evidence on record, I find that Ramgarh town is situated
adjacent to the lands in question. Accordingly, its valuation
should be fixed by the court not according to the agricultural
2025: JHHC: 10193
classification, which has wrongly done by the Collector under
the Act.
13. Having regard to the above discussion taking together with
the exhibits and other materials available on the record, it is
apparent that the land of Bujurg Jamira and others have also
been acquired for the same purpose and this court in his
judgment dated 29.02.16 (Ext.4) fixed the compensation of Rs.
8000/- per decimal. It is the case of the petitioners that since
village Kadru is tribal dominated area, there is few sale and
purchase; so no any documents regarding relevant sale and
purchase of the relevant lands could be found. Moreover from
perusal of the Ext.3 which is the rate fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer it appears that different rates have been
fixed for different land."
28. This Court further finds that the appellants have filed these appeals
by taking valuation of the appeal at Rs. 8,000/- per decimal and a specific
prayer has been made by the appellants in the first appeal that the
compensation of the land should be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per decimal
and accordingly the court fees etc. has also been paid by the appellants.
The valuation has apparently been done in view of exhibit-4 which has
been taken care of by the learned trial court where the amount of
compensation was @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimal for village Bujurg Jamira.
29. However, the appellants have placed on record other orders by way
of additional evidence. Through the additional evidence, four orders have
been prayed for consideration i.e. Annexure AE1 to AE4. The
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3455 of 2025 reveals that the
appellants are relying upon the following documents for the purposes of
fixation of compensation: -
(A) Awards passed by Sr. Civil Judge-II-Cum-Special Judge L.A.
Cases Ramgarh Dt. 28 March 2016 for Village Daridag
granting @ Rs. 6,000/- per decimal which has been
exhibited as exhibit-4/a
2025: JHHC: 10193
(B) C.C. of batch awards passed by Sr. Civil Judge-II-Cum-
Special Judge: L.A. Cases, Ramgarh Dt. 20 March 2019 for
Village Masmohna granting Rs. 7,000/- per decimals as
Annexure-AE1
(C) Awards passed by Sr. Civil Judge 11-Cum-Special Judge:
L.R. Cases, Ramgarh Dt. 31 March 2016 for Village Teliyatu
granting Rs. 7,000/- per decimals exhibited as Exhibit-4/b.
(D) C.C. of batch Awards passed by Sr. Civil Judge-II-Cum-
Special Judge L.R. Cases, Ramgarh on Dt. 28 Feb. 2018: for
Village-Sindwar Kala granting @ Rs. 11,000/- per
decimals as Annexure-AE 2
(E) Awards passed by Sr. Civil Judge-II-Cum-Special Judge,
Ramgarh awarding @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimals for the lands
acquired in Village Bujurg Jamira already been exhibited as
Exhibit-4
(F) C.C. of Award passed by Learned District-Cum-Special
Judge, Land Acquisition Hazaribagh awarded @ Rs. 8,800/-
per decimals in L.R. Case No. 31/2012, for the Lands
acquired in Village-Pochra on 26.06.2013 as Annexure-
AE3
(G) C.C. of order passed by Jharkhand High Court awarding @
Rs. 20,000/- per decimals in First Appeals of Village
Pochra, in F.A. No. 145 of 2023 and other analogous cases
as Annexure-AE4
30. The Annexure AE/1 is dated 29.03.2019 wherein the rate of the
land for granting compensation has been fixed at flat rate, that is, @ Rs.
7,000/- per decimal in connection with Village Masmohna and the date of
notification under Section 4 is dated 03.04.2003, same as that of these
cases.
31. So far as annexure AE/2 is concerned, the same is in connection
with village Sindwar Kala granting compensation @ Rs. 11,000/- per
2025: JHHC: 10193
decimal vide award dated 28.02.2018. However, the notification under
Section 4 in the said case is dated 17.12.2004.
32. So far as annexure AE/3 is concerned, the compensation has been
fixed @ Rs. 8,800/- per decimal as 10% increase has been given and the
date of acquisition in the said case is 18.09.2005.
33. So far as annexure AE/4 is concerned, which has been heavily
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of
hearing, this Court has enhanced the rate of compensation to be at Rs.
20,000/- per decimal by referring to the circle rate dated 17.08.2004 and
by observing that circle rate was prepared on 17.08.2004 just two months
before of the notification published in the official gazette. Meaning
thereby, the acquisition in the said case was relating to notification under
Section 4 which was sometimes in the month of October 2004. It further
appears that the circle rate was duly exhibited before the learned trial
court in that case but the circle rate was not considered and this Court in
F.A. No. 145 of 2023 and other analogous cases considered the circle rate
to be in proximate with the date of notification which was just two months
prior to notification and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,000/- per
decimal, in tune with the circle rate.
34. This Court is of the view that the judgment passed by this Court in
F.A. No. 145 of 2013 and analogous cases (Annexure- AE/4) is not at all
applicable to the present case as the notification involved in present cases
is dated 03.04.2003 which is much prior to the circle rate involved in F.A.
No. 145 of 2013 and other analogous cases and further in the present
proceedings, the circle rate prevalent on the date of notification or in the
vicinity in point of time with respect to the date of notification has not
been exhibited either at the trial court or before this Court. Accordingly,
the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants while
seeking enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per
decimal on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court in F.A. No. 145
of 2013 and analogous cases is hereby rejected.
2025: JHHC: 10193
35. So far as the other additional evidences placed on record [except
Annexure-AE-1] are concerned, the same also do not arise from the same
notification as that of this case. Rather the notifications in those cases are
much after the notification involved in the present case.
36. However, in Annexure AE1 the notification under section 4 of the
aforesaid Act of 1894 for village Masmohana is dated 03.04.2003 which
is the same date as the notification involved in this case. In Annexure AE1
the compensation has ultimately been fixed at flat rate, that is, @ Rs.
7,000/- per decimal with respect to village Masmohna which as per the
Map (exhibit-5) is adjoining to the village Karru, the village involved in
the present proceedings. Both the villages were acquired for the same
purpose and by the notifications having the same date. Further, the order
is Annexure AE1 was passed after passing of the impugned judgement
involved in this case and there was no occasion to place Annexure AE1
before the learned trial court.
37. However, in the impugned judgement the learned trial court has
taken into consideration another judgement dated 29.02.2016 [ exhibit-4]
relating to village Bujurg Jamira which was also acquired for laying down
of railway track and has also recorded that the compensation in the said
case was fixed @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimal, but while fixing the rate of
compensation, the learned trial court has fixed the compensation @ Rs.
3,000/- per decimal and for this, there is no discussion as to how the
learned trial court has arrived at Rs. 3,000/- per decimal. The learned trial
court has only considered that the village Karru is tribal dominated area
and there are few sales and purchase. The learned trial court has only
referred that the lands are primarily tribal land and not many sale-deeds
are available for consideration, the same by itself could not have been a
reason to fix the rate of compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per decimal without
any further reason. In this context, it is important to note that vide
paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has
categorically observed that on account of effective economic, social and
2025: JHHC: 10193
communication development, importance of the land under acquisition in
the vicinity of the area of the cantonment has considerably increased and
therefore the valuation need not be fixed by the court on the basis of
agricultural classification, which was wrongly done by the Collector under
the Act and on similar lines, the compensation was fixed in the judgment
dated 29.02.2016 (exhibit-4) @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimal in the adjoining
village Bujurg Jamira. However, from perusal of the exhibit-4 which is
dated 29.02.2016, it is apparent that the notification under Section 4 in the
said case was 25.09.2003 and the notification in the present case is dated
03.04.2003.
38. During the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that so far as the
compensation granted vide Annexure AE/1, the same was in connection
with notification under Section 4 dated 03.04.2003 and it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of
hearing that the rate of compensation as fixed therein @ Rs. 7,000/- per
decimal has attained finality. The order in Annexure AE/1 is dated
29.03.2019 and has certainly been passed during the pendency of this first
appeal. The said award is in relation to the village Masmohna and situated
in Patratu Circle.
39. At this, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it
has been stated in I.A. No. 3455 of 2025 seeking additional evidence that
Village Masmohna is situated north to the village Karru and has been
acquired for common cause and higher compensation @ Rs. 7,000/- per
decimal has been awarded and this fact is supported by the map (exhibit-
5) as mentioned above.
40. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
view that rate of compensation for land fixed in case of village Masmohna
[Annexure AE1], which is immediately adjoining to the village Karru
(involved in this case) and have been acquired by same date of
notification, that is, 03.04.2003 and for the same purpose at the flat rate of
Rs. 7,000/- per decimal, is the fair market price for the acquisition of land
2025: JHHC: 10193
of village Karra. Accordingly, the rate of compensation in these batch
cases is to be increased from flat rate of Rs. 3,000/- per decimal to flat
rate of Rs. 7,000/- per decimal.
41. All these first appeals are hereby allowed with the modification of
the award only with respect to the rate of compensation for the acquired
land and the impugned judgement is modified as under: -
"Considering the development of all the surrounding areas as
well as industries of the area, the compensation rate should be
Rs.7000/- per decimal. Accordingly, the appellants shall be
entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.7000/- per
decimal. The appellants shall be entitled for solatium and other
benefit also as admissible under the Act."
42. There shall be no order as to cost.
43. Office to prepare decree immediately.
44. All interlocutory applications are closed.
45. Let a copy of this judgement and also the appellate decree in each
case be communicated to the court concerned through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
