Central Coalfields Limited vs Umesh Kumar Gupta And Others on 5 February, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                   F.A. No. 4 of 2014

                Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi ...         ...       Appellant
                                         Versus
                Umesh Kumar Gupta and Others ... ...              ...      Respondents
                                         With
                                    F.A. No. 5 of 2014

                Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited
                                                      ...    ...      Appellant
                                         Versus
                Soharai Manjhi and Others      ...            ... Respondents
                                         With
                                   F.A. No. 6 of 2014

                Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited
                                                      ...    ...      Appellant
                                         Versus
                Chandmuni Devi and Others ...                 ... Respondents
                                         With
                                   F.A. No. 7 of 2014

                Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited
                                                     ...     ...      Appellant
                                        Versus
                Parwati Devi and Another       ...            ... Respondents

                                ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate ( In all cases) For the Respondents : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Senior Advocate : Ms. Sakshi Charu, Advocate : Miss Kavita Kumari, Advocate (In F.A. No. 4 & 5 of 2014) : Mr. Sahdeo Mahto, Advocate [In F.A. No. 6 of 2014] : Mr. B.R. Rochan, Advocate (F.A. No. 7 of 2014)

---

22/05.02.2026 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

Submission on behalf of the appellants:-

2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants had challenged the assessment of compensation made by the competent authority before the learned court and therefore the burden of proof that the compensation was not as per law was upon them. The claimants did not produce any material with respect to the acquisition of land/sale of land in the same village and mere statement that the compensation was inadequate was not sufficient. The learned court was not justified in interfering with the quantum of compensation fixed by the competent authority. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 14 SCC 50 (Ramlal Deochand Sah vs. State of Maharashtra) paragraph 9. The learned counsel has also relied upon Section 101,102 and 103 of the Evidence Act to submit that the burden is upon the person who approaches the court and the burden having not been discharged by the claimants, the interference in the quantum of compensation was wholly uncalled for.

3. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2022 (Ramrao Shankar Tapase versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others) para 13 to submit that even for the same locality different market value for different land is required to be determined. The nature of land is also required to be seen while fixing the rate of compensation. The learned counsel has submitted that several villages have been acquired by the same Notification and the learned court has referred to exhibit 1 which is in relation to another village Laiyo and the land involved in exhibit- 1 was not acquired by the same notification. The reliance on exhibit-1 is not as per law. The learned counsel has also referred to the map to submit that the village Laiyo is much away from the acquired land in the present case which is village 'Pindera'.

4. However, during the course of arguments and from the notification involved in this case, it is apparent that the land of village Pindera, Taping, Parej, Daru Kashmar and land of some other village were acquired by the same notification. It also appeared that the learned trial court has also recorded that village Parej and Daru Kashmar were adjoining to village 'Pindera'.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land of village Parej and Daru Kashmar is not adjoining to Pindera However during the course of hearing it transpired that village Parej is adjoining to village Taping and village Mansai and village Daru Kasmar fall adjoining to village Taping on the other side.

6. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as exhibit-2 is concerned, the same was in relation to acquisition of land of village Parej and Daru Kasmar and the compensation as fixed for these villages has been exhibited before the learned court as exhibit-2. She has also submitted that the compensation so fixed was the subject matter of consideration by this court in M.A. No. 50 of 1995 and analogous cases wherein the compensation has been reduced to Rs. 600 per decimal apart from other amounts. The learned counsel has submitted that the judgement in M.A. was challenged in LPA. No. 02 of 2005 and other analogous case and the LPA has also been dismissed. The learned counsel submits that while disposing of aforesaid M.A. No. 50 of 1995, the development cost to the extent of 20% was also deducted. The learned counsel submits that be it village Parej or Daru kasmar or village Laiyo, ultimately the compensation was fixed @ Rs. 600 per decimal.

7. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 (Lal Chand versus Union of India and Another) Para 22, to submit that the development cost can extend between 20% to 75%. On the point of development cost, the learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474 (Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others versus State of Haryana and Another) paragraph 8,9 and 10 and also judgement passed by this court in F.A. No. 71 of 2015 paragraph

38. It is submitted that in Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2022, the principles of deduction on account of development cost have been mentioned in paragraph 11. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in 1998 SCC Online Patna 186 (Union of India versus Kashinath Mahto) paragraph no. 14 to submit that in the

said judgment, the development cost was enhanced to the extent of 40% and the same judgment is related to the same Act under which the land acquisition in the present case has been made.

8. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, it is submitted that nothing much is to be placed except to the extent that P.W. 1 at para 5 and P.W. 2 at paragraph 3 have stated that the physical possession of the property involved in these cases was taken only in the year 1996.

The learned counsel submits that even if the interest is found payable, then also interest would be payable post 1996 and not from the date of acquisition. It has been submitted that the claimant having been in possession till 1996 have enjoyed the property and therefore they are not entitled to any interest.

9. The learned counsel submits that the payment of interest is governed by the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and has referred to Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act to submit that interest is payable only when the possession is taken and compensation is not paid or deposited.

10. The learned counsel has also submitted that the aforesaid provision of payment of interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 became applicable to the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957[hereinafter referred to as Coal Bearing Act] only where virtue of the notification issued by the central government to maintain parity in the matter of payment of compensation, interest and solatium under both the Acts. Submission on behalf of the respondents

11. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in F.A. No. 140 of 2016 paragraph 48 and 49 to submit that in case where no sale deed with respect to the same village is available, the sale deed of adjoining village certainly be taken into consideration and some amount of guess work is permissible in law. The learned counsel submits that the CCL had not produced any sale deed and even the rate chart does not refer to any sale deed. He has also submitted that rate chart Exhibit-D was exhibited at the stage of

the argument before the learned court. The learned counsel has submitted that mere rate chart by itself cannot be said to be evidence for the purposes of fixing of compensation. Vide exhibit-1 and also exhibit-2, same rate of compensation was fixed i.e. @ Rs. 600 per decimal, and as per the impugned judgment also, the rate of compensation fixed is @ Rs. 600 per decimal. The impugned judgement does not call for any interference particularly when the land involved in exhibit-2 and the land involved in the present case were acquired by the same notification and at the same time. The learned counsel has also submitted that the payment of interest and solatium also does not call for any interference and the same is payable from the date of Notification issued under Section 9 of the aforesaid Coal Bearing Act. The learned counsel submits that so far as the circular issued by the central government is concerned, the same also does not refer to the date of physical possession of the property. He has also submitted that as per Section 9, the possession of the property vests with the coal company upon issuance of notification under Section 9 and the coal company acquire the status of a lessee under the aforesaid Coal Bearing Act.

Rejoinder argument of the appellants:-

12. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that vide order dated 19.06.2018 the learned trial court by a detailed order rejected the claim for additional compensation under Section 23-(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

13. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has not granted additional compensation but, in the decree, the additional compensation has also been added. He submits that entitlement of additional compensation is also required to be decided.

14. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online 1691 paragraph 14 and 43 to submit that the circle rate can also be considered while awarding compensation by making marginal addition. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this court in F.A. No. 492 of 2018 paragraph

113 to submit that compensation can also be determined on the circle rate and that would be a basis for guess work for fixing compensation.

15. Arguments concluded.

16. Judgment is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit