Dismissed

Union of India Thr.Dy.Chief En v. Govind Rana And Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2019FA/82/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of first appeals by the Railways against a common Land Acquisition award. The reference court had reclassified Tarh-II and Tarh-III acquired land as Dhan-III and added Rs.50 per decimal for future prospects. The High Court upheld the reclassification and enhancement, holding that the Collector's revenue classification is not conclusive for determining market value.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India Thr.Dy.Chief En Vs Govind Rana And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

F. A. No. 75 of 2005

¶3

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶4

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶5

Chaman Mahto, son of Magan Mahto

¶6

Nanhu Mahto, son of Mangru Mahto

¶7

Tukan Mahto, son of Pannu Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶8

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶11

With

¶12

F. A. No. 76 of 2005

¶13

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶14

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶15

Manju Kumari @ Manju Devi, D/o Fulwa Bhuiwan, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶16

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶17

The State of Jharkhand

¶18

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶19

With

¶20

F. A. No. 77 of 2005

¶21

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶22

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto

¶25

Anup Mahto, son of Sadhu Mahto

¶26

Sankar Mahto, son of Dallu Mahto,

¶27

Nanhu Mahto, son of Jugar Mahto

¶28

Tejan Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto,

¶29

Janki Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto

¶30

Chaman Mahto, son of Magan Koyari,

¶31

Nanhu Mahto, son of Magan Koyari, All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶32

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶33

¶34

The State of Jharkhand

¶35

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶36

With

¶37

F. A. No. 78 of 2005

¶38

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶39

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶40

Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto

¶41

Anup Mahto, son of Sadhu Mahto

¶42

Sankar Mahto, son of Dallu Mahto,

¶43

Nanhu Mahto, son of Jugar Mahto

¶44

Tejan Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto,

¶45

Janki Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto

¶46

Chaman Mahto, son of Magan Koyari,

¶47

Nanhu Mahto, son of Magan Koyari, All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶48

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶49

The State of Jharkhand

¶50

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶51

With

¶52

F. A. No. 79 of 2005

¶53

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶54

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶55

Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto

¶56

Anup Mahto, son of Sadhu Mahto

¶57

Sankar Mahto, son of Dallu Mahto,

¶58

Nanhu Mahto, son of Jugar Mahto

¶59

Tejan Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto,

¶60

Janki Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto

¶61

Chaman Mahto, son of Magan Koyari,

¶62

Nanhu Mahto, son of Magan Koyari, All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶63

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶64

The State of Jharkhand

¶65

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶66

With

¶67

F. A. No. 80 of 2005

¶68

¶69

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶70

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶71

Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto

¶72

Anup Mahto, son of Sadhu Mahto

¶73

Sankar Mahto, son of Dallu Mahto,

¶74

Nanhu Mahto, son of Jugar Mahto

¶75

Tejan Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto,

¶76

Janki Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto

¶77

Chaman Mahto, son of Magan Koyari,

¶78

Nanhu Mahto, son of Magan Koyari, All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶79

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶80

The State of Jharkhand

¶81

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶82

With

¶83

F. A. No. 81 of 2005

¶84

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶85

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶86

Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto

¶87

Anup Mahto, son of Sadhu Mahto

¶88

Sankar Mahto, son of Dallu Mahto,

¶89

Nanhu Mahto, son of Jugar Mahto

¶90

Tejan Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto,

¶91

Janki Mahto, son of Dagan Mahto

¶92

Chaman Mahto, son of Magan Koyari,

¶93

Nanhu Mahto, son of Magan Koyari, All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶94

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶95

The State of Jharkhand

¶96

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶97

With

¶98

F. A. No. 82 of 2005

¶99

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶100

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶101

¶102

Govind Rana,

¶103

Suraj Rana,

¶104

Raj Kumar Rana, all sons of late Fagu Rana All resident of village - Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶105

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶106

The State of Jharkhand

¶107

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶108

With

¶109

F. A. No. 83 of 2005

¶110

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶111

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶112

Akbar Ali

¶113

Sabrati Mian both sons of Rahmali Mian All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh.

¶114

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶115

The State of Jharkhand

¶116

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶117

With

¶118

F. A. No. 84 of 2005

¶119

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶120

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶121

Versus

¶122

Tejan Mahto,

¶123

Janki Mahto,

¶124

Dineshwar Mahto, all sons of Degan Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶125

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶126

The State of Jharkhand

¶127

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶128

With

¶129

F. A. No. 85 of 2005

¶130

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶131

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶132

¶133

Anil Kumar Singh, son of Dhaneshwar Ram, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh.

¶134

The State of Jharkhand

¶135

With F. A. No. 86 of 2005

¶136

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶137

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶138

Beni Mahto, son of Dhanu Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent

¶139

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶140

With

¶141

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶142

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶143

Dwarika

¶144

Girendra

¶145

Bhanu

¶146

Hrisideo all sons of Laghuwar Das

¶147

Lalge

¶148

Hemraj both sons of Chaman

¶149

Ruplal

¶150

Bangali

¶151

Narsing 10.Mahadeo all sons of Chet Lal Ravidas

¶152

11.Most Kabutri, wife of Kailash

¶153

12.Basudeo son of Janki

¶154

13.Lalman

¶155

14.Chander both son of Thannu

¶156

15.Ugal son of Prasadi

¶157

16.Gopal son of Sita Ram

¶158

17.Babu Lal son of Ganpat

18.Deepak,

19.Gyani

20.Anup

21.Ram Mohan all sons of Kanhai

¶164

22.Shyam Lal, son of Bansi

¶165

23.Most Karmi, wife of Prabhu

¶166

24.Most. Dhaneshwari, wife of Madhusuden

¶167

25.Prettam,

¶168

26.Koleshwar,

¶169

27.Mithilesh all sons of Raghu

¶170

28.Sita Ram

¶171

29.Birsha, son of Balo

¶172

30.Ghutar son of Jhaman

¶173

31.Ram Kumar

¶174

32.Dilip

¶175

33.Ganesh all son of Dhaneshwar

¶176

34.Most. Radhika wife of Surju Ravidas. All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh.

¶177

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶178

The State of Jharkhand

¶179

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶180

With

¶181

F. A. No. 88 of 2005

¶182

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶183

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶184

Puran Sao,

¶185

Mahadeo Sao both son of Laldhari Sao

¶186

Dhanu Sao

¶187

Kailash Sao

¶188

Prabhu Sao all sons of late Degan Sao All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶189

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶190

The State of Jharkhand

¶191

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶192

With

¶193

F. A. No. 89 of 2005

¶194

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶195

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶196

Janki Mahto

¶197

Tejan Mahto

¶198

Dineshwar Mahto all sons of Degan Mahto,

¶199

¶200

Sankar Mahto, son of Dallu Mahto

¶201

Nanhu

¶202

Bodhan both son of Ugal Mahto

¶203

Prabhu

¶204

Murli

¶205

Kuleshwar all son of Chintaman Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶206

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶207

The State of Jharkhand

¶208

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶209

With

¶210

F. A. No. 90 of 2005

¶211

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶212

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶213

Sitaram Mahto

¶214

Narayan Mahto, both son of Jhaman Mahto

¶215

Rajesh Mahto, son of Prayag Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶216

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶217

The State of Jharkhand

¶218

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶219

With

¶220

F. A. No. 91 of 2005

¶221

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶222

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶223

Basudeo Mahto, son of late Kheman Mahto, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶224

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶225

The State of Jharkhand

¶226

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶227

With F. A. No. 92 of 2005

¶228

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶229

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶230

¶231

Versus

¶232

Dhannu Mahto, son of Karu Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent

¶233

The State of Jharkhand

¶234

With

¶235

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶236

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶237

Saro Devi wife of Fagu Gope, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶238

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶239

The State of Jharkhand

¶240

With

¶241

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶242

Versus

¶243

Narsing Prasad Rana, son of late Lal Mohan Rana, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶244

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶245

The State of Jharkhand

¶246

With

¶247

F. A. No. 95 of 2005

¶248

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶249

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶250

Versus

¶251

Md. Mokhtar

¶252

Mustak

¶253

Imtiyaz

¶254

Safaraj all sons Ramjan Ali All resident of village- Nawada, P.O & P.S. Katkamsandi,

¶255

¶256

Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh … … Petitioners/Respondents

¶257

The State of Jharkhand

¶258

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶259

With

¶260

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶261

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶262

Ganesh Mahto, son of Bani Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶263

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶264

The State of Jharkhand

¶265

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶266

With

¶267

F. A. No. 97 of 2005

¶268

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶269

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus Tatri Devi, wife of Narsing Prasad Rana, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶270

The State of Jharkhand

¶271

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶272

With

¶273

F. A. No. 98 of 2005

¶274

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶275

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶276

Lateshwar Rana son of Bodhan Mistri

¶277

Deepak Rana

¶278

Manish Rana

¶279

Anil Rana all sons of Tuken Mistri All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶280

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶281

The State of Jharkhand

¶282

¶283

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶284

With

¶285

F. A. No. 99 of 2005

¶286

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶287

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶288

Basudeo Mahto, son of Jagarnath Mahto

¶289

Alakh Mahto, son Vulan Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶290

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶291

The State of Jharkhand

¶292

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶293

With

¶294

F. A. No. 100 of 2005

¶295

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶296

Dawarika Kumar Das, son of Raghuwar Das, All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶297

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶298

The State of Jharkhand

¶299

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶300

With

¶301

F. A. No. 101 of 2005

¶302

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶303

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶304

Madan Kahar, son of Talo Kahar

¶305

Bashudeo

¶306

Jagdish

¶307

Murli

¶308

Ganesh all sons of Bandhan Kahar All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶309

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶310

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶311

¶312

With

¶313

F. A. No. 102 of 2005

¶314

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶315

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶316

Basudeo Gope son of Jagernath Mahto

¶317

Alakh Mahto son of Vulan Mahto

¶318

Samlal Mahto

¶319

Zaddu both son of Jeetan Mahto

¶320

Mangri

¶321

Yetwariya D/o Kwali Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶322

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶323

The State of Jharkhand

¶324

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶325

With F. A. No. 103 of 2005

¶326

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶327

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶328

Bundiya Devi wife of Kheman Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent

¶329

The State of Jharkhand

¶330

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶331

With F. A. No. 104 of 2005

¶332

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶333

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶334

Bishundhari Kahar son of Basudeo Kahar

¶335

Dilip Ram

¶336

Manoj Verma

¶337

Amit Kumar

¶338

Ranjeet Kumar all sons of Basudeo Kahar

¶339

Naresh Ram son of Raghunath Ram

¶340

¶341

Paras son of Lalman Kahar

¶342

Raja Ram

¶343

Tribhuwan Ram both sons of Bideshi Kahar

¶344

10.Dewraj

¶345

11.Ashok, both sons of Jugal Kahar All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶346

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶347

The State of Jharkhand

¶348

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶349

With

¶350

F. A. No. 105 of 2005

¶351

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶352

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶353

Versus

¶354

Yougan Mahto

¶355

Bashudeo Mahto

¶356

Bhuneshwar Mahto All sons of Kheman Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶357

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶358

The State of Jharkhand

¶359

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶360

With

¶361

F. A. No. 106 of 2005

¶362

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶363

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶364

Bhukhal Mahto, son of Jhaman Mahto

¶365

Degan Mahto

¶366

Bashudeo Mahto

¶367

Bhuneshwar Mahto

¶368

All sons of Kheman Mahto

¶369

All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶370

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶371

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶372

With F. A. No. 107 of 2005

¶373

¶374

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶375

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶376

Versus

¶377

Rajesh Mahto, son of Prayag Mahto,

¶378

Narayan Mahto, son of Jhaman Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶379

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶380

The State of Jharkhand

¶381

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶382

With

¶383

F. A. No. 108 of 2005

¶384

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶385

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶386

Versus

¶387

Tukan Mahto

¶388

Gobind Mahto

¶389

Sukhdeo Mahto All sons of Dhanu Mahto

¶390

All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶391

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶392

The State of Jharkhand

¶393

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶394

With

¶395

F. A. No. 109 of 2005

¶396

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶397

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶398

Versus

¶399

Rajeshwar

¶400

Rameshwar

¶401

Ramdeo

¶402

All sons of Chintaman Ram

¶403

All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶404

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶405

The State of Jharkhand

¶406

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶407

¶408

With

¶409

F. A. No.110 of 2005

¶410

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶411

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶412

Jamani Devi D/o of Jiten Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent

¶413

The State of Jharkhand

¶414

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶415

With

¶416

F. A. No. 111 of 2005

¶417

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶418

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶419

Peman Mahto, son of Ganori Mahto,

¶420

Ashok Mahto,

¶421

Suresh Mahto,

¶422

Birendra Mahto

¶423

All sons of Kishun Mahto

¶424

All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶425

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶426

The State of Jharkhand

¶427

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶428

With F. A. No. 112 of 2005

¶429

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶430

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶431

Nagiya Devi wife of Sita Ram Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh. … … Petitioner/Respondent

¶432

The State of Jharkhand

¶433

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶434

With F. A. No. 113 of 2005

¶435

¶436

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at … … Hazaribagh Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶437

Uma Devi wife of Chandradeo Ram, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District … Hazaribagh. … Petitioner/Respondent

¶438

The State of Jharkhand

¶439

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶440

With

¶441

F. A. No. 114 of 2005

¶442

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶443

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶444

Versus

¶445

Beni Mahto, son of Chatru Koyri

¶446

Prawed Mahto son of Bardhan Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶447

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶448

The State of Jharkhand

¶449

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶450

With

¶451

F. A. No. 115 of 2005

¶452

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶453

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶454

Versus

¶455

Bodhan Mahto,

¶456

Nanhu Mahto Both sons of Juger Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶457

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶458

The State of Jharkhand

¶459

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶460

With

¶461

F. A. No. 116 of 2005

¶462

¶463

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶464

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶465

Tachhak Ram

¶466

Chandradeo Ram

¶467

Arjun Ram

¶468

Sahadeo Ram All sons of Jagdish Ram

¶469

All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶470

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶471

The State of Jharkhand

¶472

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶473

With

¶474

F. A. No. 117 of 2005

¶475

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶476

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶477

Versus

¶478

Tachhak Ram

¶479

Arjun Ram Both sons of Jagdish Ram All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶480

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶481

The State of Jharkhand

¶482

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶483

With

¶484

F. A. No. 118 of 2005

¶485

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶486

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶487

Versus

¶488

Kamli Devi wife of Dhannu Mahto

¶489

Amit

¶490

Bodhan Mahto both sons of Hulash Mahto

¶491

Gita Kumar D/o of Munni Mahto All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶492

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶493

The State of Jharkhand

¶494

¶495

… Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶496

With

¶497

F. A. No. 119 of 2005

¶498

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶499

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶500

Deepni Devi wife of Bechan Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh.

¶501

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶502

The State of Jharkhand

¶503

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶504

With F. A. No. 120 of 2005

¶505

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶506

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶507

Most. Bandhani wife of late Ganpat Mahto, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶508

… … Petitioner/Respondent

¶509

The State of Jharkhand

¶510

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶511

With

¶512

F. A. No. 121 of 2005

¶513

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶514

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶515

Versus

¶516

Mustak

¶517

Imtiyaz

¶518

Mukhtar

¶519

Sarfraj All sons of Ramjan Mian

¶520

Maqbul Mian son Gulab Main

¶521

Md. Ansari son of Abdul Hanif

¶522

Tajuddin

¶523

Allauddin Both son of Sarfudeen

¶524

¶525

Jamil

¶526

10.Minhaj

¶527

11.Moin

¶528

12.Ebrahim

¶529

All sons of Sahdat Mian All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶530

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶531

The State of Jharkhand

¶532

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶533

With

¶534

F. A. No. 122 of 2005

¶535

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶536

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶537

Mokhtar Ansari

¶538

Mustak Ansari

¶539

Imtiyaz Ansari

¶540

Sarfraj Ansari All sons of Rahman Ansari

¶541

Abdul

¶542

Quem

¶543

Tajuddeen

¶544

Allauddin

¶545

All sons of Sarful

¶546

All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶547

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶548

The State of Jharkhand

¶549

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶550

With

¶551

F. A. No. 123 of 2005

¶552

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶553

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶554

Versus

¶555

Narsing Prasad Rana son of late Lalmohan Rana

¶556

Suresh

¶557

Upendra Rana Both sons of Arjun Rana

¶558

Nanhu

¶559

Meena

¶560

¶561

Prayag

¶562

All sons of Deodhari Rana

¶563

Bani

¶564

Hari

¶565

Both sons of Hulash

¶566

Lateshwar Rana son of Bandhan Rana

¶567

10.Deepak

¶568

11.Mukesh

¶569

12.Anil

¶570

All sons of Tukan Rana

¶571

13.Prem

¶572

14.Lateshwar both son of Doman Rana

¶573

15.Govind

¶574

16.Suraj

¶575

17.Raj Kumar All sons of Fagu Rana

¶576

18.Dhan Son of Lateshwar Rana. All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶577

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶578

The State of Jharkhand

¶579

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶580

With

¶581

F. A. No. 124 of 2005

¶582

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶583

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶584

Versus

¶585

Teko Rabidas son of Doman

¶586

Prayag Ram son of Mannu Ram

¶587

Badaynath son of Degan

¶588

Vikhan Ram

¶589

Chatoo Ram Both son of Doman Ram

¶590

Ramdeo

¶591

Sukhdeo

¶592

Both son of Dhaneshwar

¶593

Prakash Ram son of Ledo Ram

¶594

Raj Kumari wife of Sugon

¶595

10.Sunil Ram son of Chattru Ram

¶596

11.Nageshwar Ram son of Bodhan

¶597

12.Geeta wife of Amirica

¶598

13.Mohali wife of Budhan

¶599

14.Pachal Ravidas son of Budhan

¶600

15.Hulash son of Mannu All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶601

¶602

… … Petitioners/Respondents The State of Jharkhand

¶603

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶604

With

¶605

F. A. No. 125 of 2005

¶606

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶607

Mithelesh Mishra, son of Rameshwar Mishra

¶608

Tripurari Mishra son of Narayan Mishra All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶609

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶610

The State of Jharkhand

¶611

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶612

With

¶613

F. A. No. 126 of 2005

¶614

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶615

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus

¶616

Puran Saw,

¶617

Mahadeo Saw both son of Laldhari Saw,

¶618

Dhannu Saw,

¶619

Kailash Sao,

¶620

Prabhu Sao, all sons of Degan Saw

¶621

Bodhan Gope son of Titu Gope

¶622

Bali

¶623

Langda

¶624

Karma

¶625

10.Sita Saw, all sons of late Muter Gope All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶626

… … Petitioners/Respondents

¶627

The State of Jharkhand

¶628

… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent

¶629

With F. A. No. 127 of 2005

¶630

Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh

¶631

… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant

¶632

¶633

Versus

¶634

Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh

¶635

The State of Jharkhand

¶636

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶637

¶638

For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate Mr. Sidhant Sinha, Advocate

¶639

¶640

15 /12.04.2019 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶641

2. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, counsel assisted by Mr. Sidhant Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in all the cases.

¶642

3. These appeals have been filed against judgment and award dated 21.05.2005 ( award signed on 17.06.2005) passed in L.R. Case No. 33 of 2003 and analogous cases by the Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge of L.R. Cases, Hazaribag arising out of L.A. Case No. 30/2001-02.

¶643

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that large chunk of land was acquired for the railways and a number of land reference cases were instituted. He submits that all these cases arise from notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in District Gazette on 16.03.2002 and lastly published in Prabhat Khabar on 21.04.2002 for which declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made on 14.03.2002 and published on 02.05.2005. By the same notification lands of several persons have been acquired. He submits that several L.R. cases were instituted and decided by common judgment and award dated 21.05.2005, which are under challenge in these batch of cases.

¶644

¶645

Accordingly, he submits that common questions are involved in all these appeals.

¶646

5. The counsel submits that upon local inspection, the District Land Acquisition Officer assessed the amount of compensation at the following rates:

¶647

NATURE OF LAND	COMPENSATRION PER ACRE
DHAN-I	3,50,000/-
TARH-I	3,50,000/-
DHAN-II	2,18,750/-
DHAN-III	1,75,000/-
TARH-II	87,500/-
TARH-III	21,875/-
PARTI LAND	10,937/-

¶648

6. The counsel for the appellant submits that in all the cases involved in these cases the nature of land is either Tarh II or Tarh III.

¶649

7. The claimants had received the compensation under protest and prayed for reference on the ground that the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of prevailing market rate and future prospects of the land is required to be considered.

¶650

8. The counsel submits that by the impugned judgment, the land which falls under the classification of Tarh III and Tarh-II, were held to be wrongly classified and they were re-classified as Dhan-III and accordingly, the rate of compensation with regard to the lands covered under Tarh-II and Tarh-III was taken to be the rate of land for Dhan-III. Further, over and above the rate which was applicable for Dhan-III for these particular properties, the learned court below had also considered the future prospects and ultimately, fixed the compensation for these properties at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/per acre i.e. Rs. 18,00/- per decimal.

¶651

¶652

9. The counsel submits that so far as the recording of evidence as mentioned in the impugned judgement is concerned , the same has been rightly recorded, but, so far as the grounds of appeal is concerned, the specific case of the appellant is that the lands which are already classified as TarhII and Tarh-III by the Collector / government could not have been changed to be classified as Dhan-III without there being any evidence. Further, the classification of land as Tarh-II and Tarh-III done by the Collector as per revenue records was in accordance with law and the learned court below could not have changed the classification of the land from Tarh-II and Tarh-III to Dhan-III only with a view to enhance the compensation payable in connection with such acquired properties.

¶653

10. Counsel further submits that the learned court below has not only changed the classification of lands from Tarh-II and Tarh-III to Dhan-III, but has also considered future prospects of the land and further, enhanced the rate by Rs. 50/- per decimal. He submits that such approach of the learned court below is in conflict with the relevant factors for determination of the market value of the property as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1622 and he submits that the rate of compensation vis-a-vis the classification of the land, which was already fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, was in accordance with law and did not call for any interference. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned judgment and awards are fit to be set-aside and it may be directed that the rate of compensation which was already fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, was correct and the appellant would be finally liable to pay compensation only to that extent. 11. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in all the cases, on the other hand, submits that the central issue in connection with determination of compensation is the market

¶654

¶655

value of the property on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and merely because the Collector, as per the records, had classified the lands in a particular manner, the same will not be conclusive for the purposes of determination of market value of the property and the compensation to be awarded to the land loser. He accordingly submits that the rate of land which was fixed by the learned court below has been rightly determined on the basis of materials on record which do not call for any interference.

¶656

12. He submits that after appreciating the evidence, the learned court below has come to a definite conclusion that the land involved in these cases was having potentiality of cultivation and yielding vegetables, wheat and cash crops like mustard etc., and they have the same potentiality as Dhan III lands and accordingly the compensation could not have been fixed at the rate mentioned for Tarh-III and Tarh-II and are required to be fixed at the rate prescribed for Dhan III. The counsel submits that after arriving at such finding, the learned court below fixed the compensation in connection with Tarh-II and Tarh-III property as that of Dhan-III lands and thereafter, considered the future prospects of the lands with regards to the vicinity and the location of the lands and enhanced the compensation further by Rs. 50 per decimal. Accordingly, he submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award which does not call for any interference.

¶657

13. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the amount of compensation on the basis of the classification of the land as per the records available with the government and claimed to have made certain local inspection.

¶658

¶659

14. The land losers being dissatisfied with the compensation, filed applications and the reference cases were instituted before the learned court below which have been decided by the common judgment and award which is under challenge in all these appeals. It is not in dispute that the petitioners of the cases had received compensation under protest and they had prayed for reference on the following grounds:

¶660

(a) The amount of compensation has not been assessed on the basis of prevailing market rate,

¶661

(b)Potentiality and future prospects of acquired land has not been considered.

¶662

15. This Court finds that the learned court below had issued notice to the opposite parties and in compliance of the notice, the State did not file any written statement, but the Deputy Chief Engineer, Railways appeared and filed his written statement.

¶663

16. This court finds that it is not in dispute that most of the lands involved in these cases are classified in the revenue records either as Tarh II or Tarh III. It was specific case of the land losers that the lands involved in these cases were of uniform nature so far as the market value and the yield are concerned and the classification adopted by the respondents for the purposes of award of compensation was not correct. It was further case that considering the location of the land as well as future prospects of the land, much higher compensation was payable. The specific case of the respondents was that the land was not uniform and some portion of the acquired land was also barren and hence the classification was proper. It was also contended that the lands are far from municipal area and it is barren and considering dis-similarity in regard to locality and the nature of the land, the same cannot be classified as the same category.

¶664

¶665

17. The learned court below had framed the following issues:

¶666

(a) Whether the acquired land is improperly classified and whether the acquired land is uniform in nature?

¶667

(b) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get enhance compensation, if so to what extent?

¶668

18. In support of the respective stand taken by the parties, both the parties had produced oral and documentary evidences. 19. The factors for determination of market value of the acquired land has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652 at paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the said judgment which has been also quoted in judgment passed by this Court in F.A. No. 8/2004 are as follows:-

¶669

“3. Before tackling the problem of valuation of the land under acquisition it is necessary to make some general observations. The compulsion to do so has arisen as the trial court has virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer as a judgment under appeal and has evinced unawareness of the methodology for valuation to same extent. The true position therefore requires to be capsulized.

¶670

4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:

¶671

(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.

¶672

(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court.

¶673

(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.

¶674

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

¶675

(5) The market value of the land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

¶676

¶677

(dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).

¶678

(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.

¶679

(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.

¶680

(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land).

¶681

(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.

¶682

(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:

¶683

(i) proximity from time angle.

¶684

(ii) proximity from situation angle.

¶685

(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.

¶686

(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.

¶687

(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.

¶688

(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:

¶689

_Plusfa _	ctors	Minusfactors
_1. _	Smallness of size	1. Largeness of area
_2. _ _3. _	Proximity to a road, Frontage on a road	2.situation in the interior at a distance from the Road 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
_4. _	Nearness to developed area	4. lower level requiring the _depressedportion to befilled up. _
_5. _	Regular shape	5. remoteness from developed _locality _
_6. _	Level vis-à-vis land under acquisition	6. Some special disadvantageous factor which would defer a purchaser
7.speci an adj	al value for an owner of oining property to whom

¶690

¶691

it may have some very special advantage

¶692

(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq. yds. Or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.”

¶693

20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course, the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

¶694

21. This Court finds that in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 13 SCC 557 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also taken into consideration the future prospects of the land while fixing the compensation of the land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in appropriate cases. 22. In the light of the aforesaid, the following are the points for determination by this Court in these appeals:-

¶695

(i) Whether the lands classified as Tarh II and III were rightly treated as Dhan III for the purposes of determination of compensation?

¶696

(ii) Whether the claimants were entitled to further enhancement of compensation on account of future prospects of the land ?

¶697

¶698

23. The claimants in support of their contention, had examined as many as 8 witnesses. The evidences of these witnesses were filed on affidavit and all had deposed that the land was acquired for construction of railway line in Land Acquisition Case Number 30 of 2001-02 and that the amount of compensation was below the market value. It was the specific case of the claimants that the acquired land had uniform potentiality and on some potion, the house may be constructed and the land was parallel to Barkakana Hazaribag Road and the college in the locality was just 2 K.M. away. it was deposed that the classification of land is improper and compensation was wrongly fixed on the basis of such classification adopted by the respondents and the market value of the land involved in these cases were much higher. It was specifically deposed by witness no. 1 on behalf of the claimants that the acquired land was having a good potentiality and the claimants were cultivating paddy, cabbage etc. and after harvesting paddy, they were also cultivating wheat on the acquired land. All the witnesses of the claimants clearly deposed that the land which was acquired was being cultivated and had good potentiality and were almost of the same nature.

¶699

24. On the other hand, the State before the learned court below had examined only one witness and had stated that the distance of the land from village Nawada was half kilometer to one kilometer and that there was no road near the acquired land and further, that the lands were having different classification and were having different advantages and disadvantages. However, during the course of crossexamination, he had deposed that the land of village Haran which was also acquired, was classified as Class-I although it was 10 kilometers away from Nawada. It also came to light that the Markham college Hazaribagh was within two kilometers

¶700

¶701

from Hazaribagh urban area and that the classification was made on the basis of experience and he could not state as to whether the land was suitable for constructing house or not. The other witnesses of the opposite party Railways said that the proper classification has been done by the Collector, but they were unable to say about the fertility of the land and they stated that they cannot classify the land according to fertility. It also came to light from the evidence of the opposite parties that a Railway line was proposed to be made at village Nawada situated about two kilometers from the proposed railway station and the village Nawada was itself situated by the side of Barkakana – Hazaribagh road.

¶702

25. This Court is of the considered view that the whole idea of investigation into the nature of land, its fertility etc. is to determine the potentiality and the market value of the property on the date of notification so as to assess proper compensation payable to the land losers.

¶703

26. This Court further finds that from the evidences of the claimants on record, it came to light that the acquired lands were having potentiality of cultivation and yielding vegetables, wheat and cash crops like mustard etc. and there was no such evidence on the part of the opposite parties (both the state as well as the railways ) to contradict the evidence of the claimants on the aforesaid point and the opposite parties were relying upon the classification made by the collector and it was stated by the sole witness produced by the opposite party - state that classification was made on the basis of experience. Even the witnesses produced by the railways clearly deposed that they were unable to say anything about the fertility of the acquired land. It also came to light in the evidence of the opposite partyrailways, that the acquired land was situated about 3 K.M from the main township and the proposed railway line was 2 K.M from the proposed railway station of Hazaribagh.

¶704

¶705

27. This Court is of the considered view that the classification made by the Collector as per revenue records is not a conclusive evidence regarding classification of property for the purposes of assessment of the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Court further finds that the respondents’ witnesses could not justify the classification of the land for the purposes of determination of market value of the property. This Court finds that the respondents did not produce enough evidence to contradict the claim of the claimants that the acquired properties were of same potentiality and are required to be treated at par. The opposite parties could not justify the compensation offered to the claimants when considered in the light of the aforesaid judgements decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court further finds the acquired land had good future prospects considering the location of the land and the purposes for which it was acquired. There can be no doubt that the land had good future prospects and this aspect of the matter was also required to be considered by the learned court below as the authorities had not considered the aspect of future prospects of the land while offering compensation to the claimants. It is not the case of the respondents that the future prospects of the land was also considered while fixing the rate of compensation.

¶706

28. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below after considering the materials on record, rightly held that the classification of land for the purposes of compensation under Tarh-III or Tarh-II is improper.

¶707

29. The learned court below also came to the finding that evidences on record suggest that the land classified in Tarh-II and Tarh-III have the same potentiality like Dhan-III and accordingly, treated the land classified as Tarh-III and Tarh-II as

¶708

¶709

Dhan-III for the purposes of assessment of compensation and accordingly, adopted the rate given by the opposite parties relating to Dhan III lands . Thereafter, the learned court below considered the future prospects of the land and while considering the future prospects of the land, the learned court below also considered the vicinity of the land as well as the relevant sale-deeds produced before the court and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the future prospects of the land was also to be included for the entire chunk of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50/- per decimal.

¶710

30. The learned court below, while considering the fixation of the compensation, has also considered the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 1652 and considering these aspects of the matter and the materials on record, both oral and documentary, fixed the compensation in connection with the acquired properties .

¶711

31. Thus, this Court finds that the learned court below after appreciating the materials on record, rightly came to a finding that the potentiality of the land which was classified as Tarh-II and Tarh-III was similar not only in respect of potentiality of agricultural yield but also with respect to the prevailing market value and also the future prospects. In such circumstances, the learned court below has rightly fixed the compensation by treating the Tarh-II and Tarh-III lands as Dhan-III land with further enhancement on account of future prospects @ Rs.50 per decimal . The learned court below ultimately held that from the evidence, it may be gathered that the acquired land having potentiality of cultivation and yielding vegetables, wheat and cash crops like mustard etc. and it also came in evidence that farmers of Nawada village are producer of large quantity of vegetable. Thus, the classification of land in tarh-III or Tarh-II is improper. It further held that from the evidence, it appears that there are 3 types of lands at or near vill- Nawada. The learned

¶712

¶713

court below also held that some land at village Nawada were classified as Dhan-I and held that the classification with regards to Dhan I and Dhan-II was proper according to its agricultural potentiality. The learned court below held that rest classification in Tarh-III and Tarh - II is improper and held that the evidence on record clearly suggest that those lands classified in Tarh-II & III were having same potentiality like Dhan-III lands. The learned court below also considered the pleading and evidence that most the lands under acquisition were of similar potentiality, uniform in its advantage and disadvantage and accordingly held the very classification of land from Tarh-II & III to be classified as Dhan-III and compensation to be paid accordingly. By treating the land TarhII & III as Dhan-III, the rates came to be about Rs. 1,750 per dec. as per the rate of the opposite parties and held that there would be similar rate for a large extent of land under acquisition of claimants.

¶714

32. This Court is of the considered view that the learned court below rightly treated the properties earlier classified as Tarh II and Tarh III as Dhan III for the purposes of fixing compensation for the acquired land of the claimants. This Court further finds that the learned court below, by a well reasoned findings, has awarded an additional amount of Rs. 50 per decimal taking potentiality and future prospect of the acquired land, over and above the price of the land on the date of notification as determined by the learned court below. Thus for Tarh-I land, the rate was fixed as Rs. 3,55,000/-, for Dhan-II land, rate was fixed as Rs. 2,23,750/- and for remaining land at the flat rate Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre .

¶715

33. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and awards or in the approach by the learned court below in fixing the compensation in connection with the properties involved in these cases.

¶716

¶717

34. In view of the aforesaid findings, both the points as mentioned in para 22 above, are decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent claimants.

¶718

35. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any merit in these appeals and accordingly, these first appeals are hereby dismissed.

¶719

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶720

Pankaj

Union of India Thr.Dy.Chief En v. Govind Rana And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India Thr.Dy.Chief En v. Govind Rana And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Lohar Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary And Ors.

Dilip Kumar Gupta Vs Union Of India Through Senior Divisional Commercial Manager East Central Railway And Ors.

Gagendra Nag And Ors. Vs The Branch Manager State Bank Of India

Union of India Thr.Dy.Chief En Vs Bani Mahto And Anr.

Union of India Thr.Dy.Chief En Vs Basudeo Mahto And Anr.

Union of India Thr.Dy.Chief En Vs Lateshwar Rana And Ors.