Remanded

Panchu Mian And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2019FA/936/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of reference for enhanced compensation in land acquisition. HC set aside lower court judgment for failing to frame issues on crop value and annual yield. Remanded for fresh disposal applying capitalization multiplier.

What did the court decide?

Judgment dated 10.08.2006 set aside; matter remanded to Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Deoghar to frame issues on crop value and annual yield and decide afresh.

Panchu Mian And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

First Appeal No. 936 of 2006

¶2

[Against the judgment dated 10^th August, 2006 passed by the learned SubOrdinate Judge-II, Deoghar in LAR Case No. 5/2004]

¶3

1. Panchu Mian

¶4

2. Titu Mian …... Appellant(s)

¶5

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar).

¶7

2. Hanif Mian

¶8

3. Islam Mian

¶9

4. (i) Beer Mohammad Ansari

¶10

(ii) Gohar Ali

¶11

(iii) Abola Bibi

¶12

(iv) Madali Bibi

¶13

(v) Charki Bibi

¶14

5. (i) Shekhawat (ii) Fatima (iii) Hasina

6. Ismail Mian

7. Osman Mian

…... Respondent(s)

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Kumar Lal, A.C. to S.C.-II.

¶19

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the land Looser claiming enhancement of compensation. By filing this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Deoghar in LAR Case No. 05/2004, whereby, the reference case has been dismissed.

¶24

Admittedly, the land of Jamabandi No. 16 of Mouza Kokribandh No. 115 was recorded in the name of ancestor of the appellants. The land having an area of 2.48 acres were acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of canal. After acquisition of the land, the appellant were paid compensation @ Rs.9150/- per acre in respect of 1.81 acres of land and @Rs.36,600/- per acre in respect of 0.67 acre. As the assessment of the compensation was much lesser, the appellants objected. Their objection was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned SubOrdinate Judge-II, Deoghar. Before the Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Deoghar, in the proceeding, witnesses were examined by both the parties. The court below framed four issues, which have been translated in English, which read as under:-

¶25

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

¶26

(ii) Whether the claimants have got valid cause of action?

¶27

(iii) Whether the claimants have got any right to get enhanced compensation? (iv) Whether the appellants are entitled to get any relief(s) in this case?

¶28

The learned Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Deoghar, after considering the evidence of the parties, dismissed the reference case vide judgment dated 10.8.2006 holding that the claimants are not entitled to get enhanced compensation.

¶29

Challenging the said judgment dated 10.8.2006, counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of compensation is much low. He submits that the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the claimants have categorically stated that the land is Dhani land and three crops were being grown and that being so, 1.81 acres of land could not have been treated to be 'Bari' category fixing the compensation at a meager amount of Rs.9150/- per acre. He, relying upon the judgment passed by this High Court reported in 2008 (4) JCR 738 (Jhr.) in the case of Chandrika Pd. Singh @ Chandrika Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), further submits that in an acquisition of the year 1983-84 the Court had fixed the rate of land @Rs.50,000/- per acre in respect of 'Dhani-III' land. He further submits that at least same rate should have been fixed in this case after giving due consideration of the year of acquisition. He further submits that even the defendant witnesses have stated that the land is of 'Dhani-II'. He also submits that the entire facts and the principle laid down in the judgment passed by this Court in Chandrika Pd. Singh @ Chandrika Singh (Supra), should have been applied.

¶30

Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the claimant have failed to prove the current market rate of the land. He also submits that there is nothing on record which suggests that the valuation of land is Rs.50,000/- per acre. He also submits that at the time of classification of land, the claimants never objected.

¶31

After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that it is admitted case that the land, which has been acquired is governed by Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act as they are situated in Santhal Pargana. It is further admitted case that the land which is situated in Santhal Pragana cannot be transferred by way of sale. That being the legal position, admittedly, there is no sale deed which can be a basis of the market value of the acquired land. This High Court in the case of Chandrika Pd. Singh @ Chandrika Singh (Supra), has held that market value of the land falling under Santhal Pargana can be determined on the basis of value of crops and annual yield, applying suitable 10 years multiplier by method of capitalization, and the same is just and reasonable. Thus, by aforesaid judgment, guideline has been laid down by this Court as to how the market value has to be computed in relation to the lands of Santhal

¶32

Pargana, which is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶33

While applying the aforesaid principle and guideline, when I go through the record including the evidence of the parties, I find that there is no evidence whatsoever adduced as to what is the value of crops and the annual yield. None of the witnesses have stated on this line. I further find that the court below also has not framed any issue to determine the value of crops and annual yields. This issue is vital in this case. It is necessary to determine as to what would be the annual yield so that proper compensation can be assessed.

¶34

Since the aforesaid issue was not framed and there is no evidence laid down by the parties, I find that without framing the said issue and without evidence to that effect, the court below could hot have dismissed the reference. In view of this Court, an issue as to what would be the value of crops and annual yield should have been framed and evidence on that point should have been adduced.

¶35

Thus, I have got no other alternative than to set aside the judgment dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Deoghar in LAR Case No. 05/2004 and remand the matter to the Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Deoghar for deciding the reference case afresh after framing an issue as to what would be the value of crops and annual yield of the land so acquired. The learned SubOrdinate Judge-II, Deoghar will give adequate opportunities to the parties to adduce their evidence(s) on the said issue so farmed.

¶36

The Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Deoghar is directed to hear the matter afresh thereafter and pass an order on the evidence laid by the parties taking into consideration the principles laid down in the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chandrika Pd. Singh @ Chandrika Singh (Supra).

¶37

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands allowed , remanding the matter to the court below. It is expected that the trial court will dispose of the matter as early as possible after giving notice to both the parties and after recasting the issue, as held herein above.

¶38

Dated: the 10^th July, 2019. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Anu/- NAFR

¶39

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Panchu Mian And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchu Mian And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

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

Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Now Tata Steel Limited and Anr.

Biswanath Singh And Anr. Vs Illa Rani Kar And Anr.

Meera Devi and Ors. Vs Yashomati Devi and Ors.

Most Radhika Mahtani And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Jai Ram Baitha Vs Somra Pahan And Ors.

Smt Kulwant Kaur And Anr. Vs Jagprit Singh And Ors.