Batch of first appeals by the acquiring Railways against a land acquisition award. The reference court had reclassified Tarh II and Tarh III lands as Dhan III and enhanced compensation by Rs. 50 per decimal for future prospects. The High Court found no illegality or perversity and dismissed the appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F. A. No. 75 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 76 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Manju Kumari @ Manju Devi, D/o Fulwa Bhuiwan, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 77 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant
2
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 78 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
With
F. A. No. 79 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
With
F. A. No. 80 of 2005
3
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 81 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 82 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
4
… … Petitioners/Respondents
With
F. A. No. 83 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 84 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 85 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
5
Anil Kumar Singh, son of Dhaneshwar Ram, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh.
The State of Jharkhand
With F. A. No. 86 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Beni Mahto, son of Dhanu Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
15.Ugal son of Prasadi
16.Gopal son of Sita Ram
17.Babu Lal son of Ganpat
18.Deepak,
19.Gyani
20.Anup
6
21.Ram Mohan all sons of Kanhai
22.Shyam Lal, son of Bansi
23.Most Karmi, wife of Prabhu
24.Most. Dhaneshwari, wife of Madhusuden
32.Dilip
34.Most. Radhika wife of Surju Ravidas. All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh.
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 88 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 89 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
7
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 90 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 91 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Basudeo Mahto, son of late Kheman Mahto, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With F. A. No. 92 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant
8
Versus
Dhannu Mahto, son of Karu Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
With
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Saro Devi wife of Fagu Gope, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
With
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
Versus
Narsing Prasad Rana, son of late Lal Mohan Rana, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
With
F. A. No. 95 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant
Versus
9
Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh … … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Ganesh Mahto, son of Bani Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 97 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … 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
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 98 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
10
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 99 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 100 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
Dawarika Kumar Das, son of Raghuwar Das, All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 101 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
11
With
F. A. No. 102 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
With F. A. No. 103 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Bundiya Devi wife of Kheman Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With F. A. No. 104 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
12
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 105 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
With
F. A. No. 106 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With F. A. No. 107 of 2005
13
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 108 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
With
F. A. No. 109 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant
Versus
All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
14
With
F. A. No.110 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Jamani Devi D/o of Jiten Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District … Hazaribagh … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 111 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
All sons of Kishun Mahto
All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With F. A. No. 112 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Nagiya Devi wife of Sita Ram Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh. … … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With F. A. No. 113 of 2005
15
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at … … Hazaribagh Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Uma Devi wife of Chandradeo Ram, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District … Hazaribagh. … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 114 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
The State of Jharkhand
With
F. A. No. 115 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 116 of 2005
16
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 117 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
With
F. A. No. 118 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
17
… Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 119 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Deepni Devi wife of Bechan Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana no. 18, District Hazaribagh.
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With F. A. No. 120 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
Most. Bandhani wife of late Ganpat Mahto, resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner/Respondent
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 121 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
18
All sons of Sahdat Mian All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
With
F. A. No. 122 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
The State of Jharkhand
With
F. A. No. 123 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant
Versus
19
All sons of Deodhari Rana
Both sons of Hulash
All sons of Tukan Rana
18.Dhan Son of Lateshwar Rana. All resident of village- Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 124 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
Both son of Dhaneshwar
20
… … Petitioners/Respondents The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 125 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With
F. A. No. 126 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus
… … Petitioners/Respondents
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party No.1/Respondent
With F. A. No. 127 of 2005
Union of Indiathrough Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
… … Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant
21
Versus
Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto, resident of villageNawada, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Thana No. 18, District Hazaribagh
The State of Jharkhand
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate Mr. Sidhant Sinha, Advocate
15 /12.04.2019 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, counsel assisted by Mr. Sidhant Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in all the cases.
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.
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.
22
Accordingly, he submits that common questions are involved in all these appeals.
5. The counsel submits that upon local inspection, the District Land Acquisition Officer assessed the amount of compensation at the following rates:
| 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/- |
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.
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.
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.
23
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.
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
24
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.
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.
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.
25
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:
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.
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.
26
17. The learned court below had framed the following issues:
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:-
“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.
4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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
27
(dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(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.
(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.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land).
(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.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle.
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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:
| _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 |
28
it may have some very special advantage
(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.”
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.
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:-
29
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.
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
30
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.
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.
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.
31
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.
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.
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
32
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.
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 .
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
33
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.
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 .
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.
34
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.
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.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lands classified as Tarh II and Tarh III were rightly treated as Dhan III for the purposes of determination of compensation?
Whether the claimants were entitled to further enhancement of compensation on account of future prospects of the land?
Union of India through Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Division at Hazaribagh
Chaman Mahto, son of Magan Mahto
Manju Kumari @ Manju Devi, D/o Fulwa Bhuiwan
Heraman Mahto, son of Dugar Mahto
Govind Rana
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
