Dismissed

State of Bihar Now Jharkhand v. Praveen Kumar Thakur And Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2019FA/47/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appellants challenged the compensation fixed at Rs. 2000 per decimal for land acquired in Palamu district. A coordinate bench of this High Court previously held this rate correct for the same notification, rejecting a higher claim. The Court found this case on similar footing and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the judgment of the Sub-Ordinate Judge fixing compensation at Rs. 2000 per decimal is upheld.

State of Bihar Now Jharkhand Vs Praveen Kumar Thakur… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

F.A No. 47 of 2001

¶3

State of Bihar now Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s). Versus 1. Praveen Kumar Thakur @ Pradeep Kumar Thakur 2. Ajit Kumar Thakur @ Raju Kumar Thakur …. …. Respondent(s) With F.A No. 48 of 2001 State of Bihar now Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s). Versus 1 (a) Birendra Kumar Thakur b) Shailendra Kumar Thakur c) Suman Lata Kumari d) Poonam Lata Kumari 1 (f) i) Ravindra Kumar ii) Kumari Priyanka iii) Kumari Vartika iv) Nitin Kumar v) Smt. Pratyasha …. …. Respondent(s) with F.A No. 49 of 2001 State of Bihar now Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s). Versus Raghav Sharan Thakur …. …. Respondent(s)

¶4

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶6

¶7

FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr. Prasant Pallav, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate

¶8

Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate

¶9

¶10

11/17.07.2019

¶11

All three cases were listed on 12.6.2019. On that date adjournment was sought for on behalf of the appellants and the case was fixed for 13.6.2019. On 13.6.2019 adjournment was also sought for on behalf of the appellants when a direction was given to inform this Court as to whether these cases are governed by judgment passed in F.A. No. 159 of 1994(R) or not. No such affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel argues on merit.

¶12

2. These three appeals arises out of final judgment passed in L.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of 1990 which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 01.02.2001 by the Sub-Ordinate Judge-I, Palamau, Daltonganj.

¶13

3. The land of the respondents were acquired by the State for the purpose of Akashbani and Doordarshan Prasar Kendra and also for construction of its residential accommodations. The land were situated in village Bairia District Palamu. As the nature of lands were different, the rate of compensation was also differently assessed by the State.

¶14

-2-

¶15

In respect of L.A No. 1 of 1990 for 0.78 acres of land the rate was fixed at Rs. 53334/- per acre. Similarly for 1.06 acres the rate was fixed at Rs. 26607/- per acre. In respect of L.A No. 2 of 1990 for 0.30 acre the rate was fixed at Rs. 26607. So far as L.A. No. 5 of 1990 is concerned two types of rate was fixed, for 21 decimals the rate was fixed at Rs. 53334/- per acre and for 31 decimals the rate was fixed at Rs. 26667/- per acre. The land loosers did not accept the said rate as a result of which a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On reference these three cases were registered being L.A. Case No. 1, 2 and 5 of 1990. The said cases were disposed of by the common judgment. The Land Acquisition Judge considering the materials and evidence on record has held that market value of land, so acquired is Rs. 2000/- per decimal meaning thereby two lakh per acre. The Land Acquisition Judge has also awarded additional compensation and other benefits.

¶16

4. Challenging the said judgment these three appeals have been filed by the State.

¶17

5. Mr. Prasant Pallav, appearing on behalf of the State submits that compensation has been fixed on a much higher rate and the court below has committed grave error in deciding the case without framing issue. He submits that learned court below without giving any finding with regard to the nature of land has arbitrarily fixed compensation @ Rs. 2000/- per decimals. He submits that sale deed which was exhibited was not considered while arriving at a decision/ conclusion as to what would be the correct market rate.

¶18

6. Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior counsel argues and submits that for the purpose of Akashbani and Doordarshan Prasar Kendra out of the same notification several other lands were also acquired. Other acquisitions were also referred to, in relation to other land loosers under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being Land Acquisition No. 80 of 1989. Ultimately, the litigation reach upto this Hon’ble Court being First Appeal No. 159 of 1994 ( R). This Hon’ble Court considering all aspects have held that Rs. 2000/- per decimal is the correct rate which the land loosers are entitled to get for the land acquired. Hon’ble Single Judge had also held that deductions of 25% cannot be allowed keeping in view that acquisition is of very small area and cannot be said to be huge. He submits that out of same notification, when lands have been acquired and the rate has already been fixed, the same should be applied in this case also.

¶19

-3-

¶20

He refers to a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (dead) through Legal representatives and Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127 .

¶21

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records, I find that these lands were acquired for setting up of residential colony and the station of Akashbani and Doordarshan Prasar Kendra. In L.A. No. 1 of 1990 the acquisition is of 1.84 acres. In L.A. No. 2 of 1990 it is 30 decimals and so far as L.A. No. 5 of 1990 is concerned it is 52 decimals. The Land Acquisition Judge fixed the rate as Rs. 2000/- per decimal i.e two lakhs per acre. The lands involved in this case were acquired from the same notification which was subject matter of First Appeal No. 159 of 1994( R) before this Court. The said first appeal was disposed of on 18^th July, 2004 by a coordinate bench, holding that Rs. 2000/per decimal is the correct sale price of the lands. The Court also observed that no deduction can be made from the said assessed compensation amount as the area of acquisition is not huge.

¶22

8. This case stands on similar footing with that of judgment which has already been pronounced by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (dead) through Legal representatives and Ors. (Supra) has held that when the parties are identically situated there is no reason to meet out a different case with that of other. Considering the aforesaid judgment and principal of law and the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that this case will also be governed by the First Appeal mentioned above.

¶23

9. In this case, I find that rate of the market in similar nature of land arising out of the same notification has already been assessed by this Court as Rs. 2000/per decimals. Thus, I do not find any reason to disagree with the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court and also cannot differ with rate fixed. Thus, this appeal stands dismissed. The judgment passed in L.A. Nos. 1,2 and 5 of 1990 holding price of land as Rs. 2000/- per decimal is upheld.

¶24

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶25

anjali/ C.P 2

State of Bihar Now Jharkhand v. Praveen Kumar Thakur And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Bihar Now Jharkhand v. Praveen Kumar Thakur And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariam Bibi and Ors. Vs Guljhan Bibi and Ors.

Budhan Mahto and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Rama Kant Das Vs Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited

Shadeo Ram Bhadani And Ors. Vs Rizwan Ahammed And Ors.

State of Bihar Now Jharkhand Vs Raghav Sharan Thakur And Ors.

Rijwan Ahammed And Ors. Vs Sahdeo Ram Bhadani and Ors.