Jharkhand High Court

Union Of India vs Sitaram Sahu And Another on 6 May, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                  F.A. No. 140 of 2016

              Union of India, through the Chief Revenue Officer, CCL
                                                           ...     ...     Appellant
                                        Versus
              Sitaram Sahu and Another               ...        ...      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
                                        ---

23/06.05.2025         Learned counsel for the parties are present.
                2.    The present appeal arises out of Reference Case No. 13 of
                2001. The matter arises out of acquisition of land by appellant- CCL
                of the total area 12.02 acres. The notification under section 9 of Coal
                Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was issued
                on 29.12.1976.
                3.    As per the petition filed by Sitaram Sahu, son of Basu Sahu and
                Satyanarayan Prasad Gupta, S/o Kanchan Prasad Sahu before the
                learned Court under section 17(2) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
                and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Coal
                Bearing Act"), the two claimants have stated that the land of 12.02
                acres was acquired jointly in the name of Ram Chandra Sahu and
                Laldeo Sahu and the claimants were 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 2 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, Bachara 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
     from the date of acquisition of land.

A.   Reference to cross objection 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 submits 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.
     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 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 appellants has raised serious
     objection and has submitted that once the Cross Objection has been
     dismissed for default and the opposite parties have themselves

                                  2
 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
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 trial court 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:
     "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 has 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 the merit of the case regarding rate of compensation.

Arguments of the appellant.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence of Sitaram Sahu who was examined as applicant witness no. 1 and has stated 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 has further referred to the deposition of applicant witness no. 2 namely, Satyanarayan Prasad Gupta and has 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 has also submitted that in the evidence, the applicant witness no.2 has stated that for acquisition of Bachara 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 on behalf of CCL, the learned counsel for the appellant has 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 has 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 has 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 Hendgir and Bachara 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 was in absolute rural location and there was no sign of any development.

13. The learned counsel has also placed the cross examination of the aforesaid witness. During cross-examination, the O.P. witness no. 1 has deposed that Bachara 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 has also stated in his cross-examination that the collieries namely Bachara, Churi, Kedi, Ray, Tuman, 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 is colliery around Bishrampur village which is around 7 to 8 Kms away and declaration under section 9 with respect to Bihsrampur 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-deed, 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 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 has 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, the 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 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 the O.P. witness no. 2, has 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 has 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 has submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed on the basis of exhibit- 1 which is a judgment in relation to Bachara Colliery for which the land was acquired way back in the year 1965. She has submitted that the

judgment as such could not have been taken into consideration for quantifying the compensation in the present case and admittedly, Bachara colliery was around 12 Kms away from Bishrampur village. The learned counsel has also relied upon the order-sheet of the compensation case and has 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 has 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 has also submitted that even the computation with respect to different categories of land has been given.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant has 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)

(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 of the Respondents (claimants)

19. Learned counsel for the respondents has 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 Court did not include any sale-deed. He has also 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 has 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 has referred to exhibit- 1 which was in connection with village Bachara 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 submits that the distance of village Bishrampur from Bachara as per the evidence of the witnesses is around 12 Kms and around 7 to 8 Kms from other collieries. He submits that considering the time of acquisition and the location, the exhibit-1 was the closest amongst all and in absence of any sale-deed having been exhibited on behalf of CCL, the learned Court has rightly taken into consideration exhibit- 1 for the purpose of quantification of compensation. The learned counsel submits that 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 has also relied upon exhibit- 1/a and has 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 Tumang, P.S. Khelari, District- Ranchi.

22. Learned counsel for the respondents has 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 Tumang, P.S. Khelari, District- Ranchi. The learned counsel has

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, has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1998 Patna 100 (Union of India Vs. Kashinath Mahto) and has 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 has submitted that in the present case, no amount has been awarded relating to interest and solatium.

24. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments: