Dismissed

General Manager Land And Revenue v. Ajay Sao And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Nov 2019FA/32/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the enhancement of land acquisition compensation to Rs.2,520/- per decimal by the Subordinate Judge. The High Court accepted the lower court's view that the enhanced rate, based on proximate land references and presence of collieries, was proper and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and Award dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge are confirmed; the appeal is dismissed without costs.

General Manager Land And Revenue Vs Ajay Sao And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

First Appeal No.32 of 2012

¶4

¶5

General Manager Land & Revenue, Darbhanga House, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sadar, District- Ranchi

¶6

…. Opposite Party No.2/Appellant

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

1.Ajay Sao, son of late Tulshi Sundi,

¶9

2.Chitram Sundi, son of Babulal Sundi

¶10

3.Bhupendra Prasad 3(A) Inderjit Prasad 3(B)Sarwan Kumar Sundi 3(C)Bantu Kumar 3(D)Pankaj Kumar All sons of late Sita Ram Sundi

¶11

4.Kaila Sao 5.Ram Kishun Sao

¶12

Both sons of Magan Sundi

¶13

All resident of village Sondiha, Post Office-Sondiha, Police Station-Mandu, District-Hazaribagh, now Ramgarh

¶14

…… Applicants/Respondents

¶15

6.State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. –Ramgarh

¶16

…… Opposite Party No.1/ Respondent

¶17

¶18

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶19

¶20

For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ---

¶21

11/ Dated : 7^th November, 2019

¶22

1 . Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶23

2 . The opposite party No.2- appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.12.2011 and Award dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge-II-cum Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh, by which the learned court below

¶24

¶25

enhanced the rate of compensation to a flat rate of Rs.2,520/- per decimal.

¶26

3 . First Appeal No.32 of 2012 has been filed in connection with Land Reference Case No.571 of 1992 corresponding to Award No.4. 4 . The brief facts of this case is that the petitioners-objectors who are the respondents of this appeal have filed petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and on being dissatisfied on the point of compensation which has been assessed by the Deputy Commissioner in the above mentioned award.

¶27

5 . Award No.4 in Land Reference Case No. 571 of 1992 in the instant First Appeal has been prepared for the land measuring an area of 2.11 acres in village Sondiha appertaining to Khata No.100, Plot No.828, P.S. Mandu, District- Hazaribagh now Ramgarh.

¶28

6 . The case of the petitioners-objectors in the learned court below was that the government authority has assessed a low rate after the acquisition of land and they pleaded that the areas of village Sondiha is developed one but the government authority has not assessed a proper rate.

¶29

7 . The case of the opposite party No.2-appellant in the learned court below was that the rate assessed by the state authority is genuine. The entire lands are situated by the side of forest land. Village Sondiha is a very remote area and after the detailed inquiry, the rate of compensation has been determined by the government authority on the basis of the sale figure.

¶30

8 . On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following two points for determination:-

¶31

(i) Whether the rate assessed by the government authority is genuine? or

¶32

(ii) Whether the petitioners-objectors are entitled to get the compensation of the land on the enhanced rate?

¶33

9 . In support of their contention, the petitioners-objectors have examined one witness and proved the documents. Besides proving certain documents, one witness has also been examined on behalf of the opposite party in the learned court below. The learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record

¶34

¶35

assessed the valuation and also considered that in L.R. Case Nos.568 of 1992 and 569 of 1992 of the adjacent village Sondiha, the rate of acquired land has been enhanced as assessed as Rs.2,520/- per decimal and determined the compensation as Rs.2,520/- per decimal.

¶36

10 . Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below passed the impugned judgment against the weight of evidence and materials in the record and the learned court below could not properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the appellant in the learned court below in their proper perspective. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to consider the fact that the valuation of the acquired land has been done by the Collector, Hazaribagh after obtaining the sale deeds from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh and failed to take note of the fact that the Sondiha village is situated in a very remote area without having any valuation of significance and not even fit for construction of any house. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to consider that the collieries are situated 20 to 30 kilometers away from the acquired land. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside and this appeal be allowed.

¶37

11 . Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, the only point for determination in this appeal is whether the learned court below rightly enhanced the compensation amount by determining the same at Rs.2,520/- per decimal.

¶38

12 . Perusal of the record, it clearly reveals that a sole witness was examined by the petitioners-objectors in the lower court below. A.W.1 Sitaram Sahu @ Sundi has stated that the land under acquisition is no.1 and No.2 land and they used to cultivate it and grow the crops and vegetables and there are several trees of Mahua, Sakhua, Sagwan and Mango. This witness also stated that nearby the acquired land there are Arra and West Bokaro Collieries and other collieries just adjacent within half K.M. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the case in which judgment

¶39

¶40

passed for the reference the land involved therein of khata no.101, Plot no.823 and that land is just towards south. He has also stated that the land acquired in the year 1986-87 and the petitionersobjectors along with the others received the compensation with objection and filed written objection for enhancement of the rate. He also stated that there is irrigation facility and the electricity supply by D.V.C. He further stated that Chainpur station is just side of the village Sondiha and within one and half K.M. away and there is Sadhugarha colliery, Arra Colliery and West Bokaro Colliery.

¶41

13 . Apart from the oral testimony, the petitionersobjectors have also proved the judgment passed in different L.R. cases, which have been marked as Exts. 1, 1/a and 1/b. Photocopy of the sale deed has been marked as Exts. 2 to 2b. Original notification and photocopy of the notification have been marked as Exts. 3 to 3/h and photocopy of the deposition, petition as well as valuation report and valuation khatiyan have been marked as Exts. 4 to 4b, 5, 6, 7 and 7/a, respectively.

¶42

14 . From the side of the Opposite party no.1 namely Nand Kishore Singh has stated that the land under village Sondiha, has been acquired for coal handling plant and the compensation was fixed after the statistics of the registry office. This witness had stated that the land is undeveloped and the rate was fixed properly. In his cross-examination, this witness had also admitted that the area 2.11 acres is a land is a tanr land and road is passing by this land.

¶43

15 . After going through the evidence on the record, I find that the main issue is the rate of compensation of the acquired land situated at village Sondiha and at the same time, it is not disputed that village Bhadwa and village Sondiha are adjacent villages and their geographical situations are similar and the land was acquired vide Declaration No.BLA HAR 26/89, 1746R RO 11.7.89.

¶44

16 . It is also not disputed that in L.R. Case Nos.568 of 1992 and 569 of 1992, the rate of acquired land has been assessed at Rs.2,520/- per decimal. As already indicated above, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses of the rival

¶45

¶46

parties to demolish or discredit their testimony and through the evidence put forth by them. The following facts have been stated by the petitioners-objectors:-

¶47

(i) The village is full of industries, colleries and there is railway station in the village Chainpur, which is adjacent to the village and there are West Bokaro Coal siding and plant towards north of the acquired land and the C.C.L.

¶48

(ii) Arra Kanta Colliery Plant is hardly half K.M. west to the acquired land.

¶49

(iii) Village Bhadwa and village Sondiha are adjacent villages and their geographical situations are similar.

¶50

(iv) In L.R. Case Nos.568 of 1992 and 569 of 1992 the rate of acquired land has been assessed at Rs.2,520/- per decimal and the same has not been challenged.

¶51

17 . Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I have no hesitation in holding that the enhanced rate of compensation by determining the same at the rate of Rs.2,520/- per decimal as made by the learned court below is proper. The point of determination is answered accordingly.

¶52

18 . In view of the discussions made above, the judgment dated 23.12.2011 and Award dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-II-cum Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh is confirmed and this First Appeal No.32 of 2012 , being without any merit is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any cost.

¶53

19 . Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.

¶54

20 . In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶55

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. )

¶56

SI/,

General Manager Land And Revenue v. Ajay Sao And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager Land And Revenue v. Ajay Sao And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravijit Siyat Mathur and Others Vs Gabrial Purty And Anr.

Smt Jamuna Devi Vs Smt Chintamani Mitra

Chandra Bodhan Sahu Vs Mani Devi

Smt.Sarala Mahatani Vs Hari Pada Mahato And Ors.

Jamshedpur Cooperative House Vs Smt.Sarala Mahatani And Ors.

Shyam Narayan Singh Vs M/S Tata Iron And Steel Company