Partly allowed

Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Shyamlal Mahto And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Mar 2023FA/146/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the appeal in part and modified the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge to Rs. 3,000 per decimal. The decision was based on a prior judgment in three other appeals from the same judgment and award, following a similar ratio.

What did the court decide?

The compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge is modified to Rs. 3,000 per decimal to be payable in favour of the land losers along with statutory provisions such as solatium, addition

Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs Shyamlal Mahto And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

F .A. No. 146 of 2008

¶3

Central Coalfields Ltd. through its General Manager (L&R), Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶4

..... … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shyamlal Mahto, son of Mutar Mahto

¶7

Ladu Mahto, son of Mutar Mahto

¶8

Loknath Mahto, son of Dhani Mahto

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

-----For the Appellant : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate. For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate. For the Resp. No. 4 (State): Mr. N.K. Pandey, A.C. to SC (L&C)-I.

¶13

¶14

14/ 02.03.2023 Heard Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-CCL, Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (land loosers) and Mr. N.K. Pandey, learned A.C. to SC(L&C)-I, for the State.

¶15

This appeal has been filed against the common judgment dated 22.04.2008 and award dated 07.05.2008, passed by the learned SubJudge-II-cum-Land Acquisition, Hazaribag, in L.R. Case No. 96 of 1993.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this court by judgment dated 24.10.2019 has already decided the F.A. Nos. 144, 145 and 147 of 2008, which are also arising out of the said common judgment and the award, wherein modification has been made to the awarded amount to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per decimal to be payable to the land loosers along with statutory provision such as solatium, additional compensation and interest. She submits that while deciding those appeals, the cogent reason has been provided by this Court, in that view of the matter, the similar order may kindly be passed in the present first appeal.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the land loosers (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) submits that against that judgment, the review petition has been preferred by the land loosers, which is still pending.

¶18

Considering that the identical issue has already been decided by judgment dated 24.10.2019, in F.A. Nos. 144, 145 and 147 of 2008, the same order is being passed in the present first appeal, which is also arising out of the same judgment and award.

¶19

Accordingly, the judgment dated 24.10.2019, passed in F.A.

¶20

Nos. 144, 145 and 147 of 2008 shall also govern the present first appeal. 7. In the judgment dated 24.10.2019, passed in F.A. Nos. 144, 145 and 147 of 2008, in paras-20, 21, 22 and 23, it has been held as follows:-

¶21

“ 20. However, this Court is not accepting the argument of Mr. A.K. Das with regard to larger chunk of land, accordingly, if the deductions are made from the assessed value of Rs.4,000/- per decimal, the final valuation is bound to decrees in terms of 25% is deducted from the aforesaid grant award, the amount will come to Rs.3,000/- per decimal approximately.

¶22

21. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the correct value of land so acquired should be fixed at the rate of Rs.3000/- per decimal. The remaining part of the award with regard to the solatium, additional compensation and interest will remain the same.

¶23

22. In view of the above discussions, these appeals stand allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned award is modified to Rs.3,000/- per decimal to be payable by the appellant court in favour of the land losser along with the statutory provision such as solatium, additional, compensation and interest. 23. With the above modification, the award dated 22nd April, 2008 is modified to the above extent and these appeals stand allowed in part and accordingly, disposed of.”

¶24

In view of the above, the compensation amount awarded by

¶25

the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned award is modified to Rs.3,000/- per decimal to be payable by the appellant in favour of the land loosers along with the statutory provision such as solatium, additional, compensation and interest.

¶26

With the above modification, this appeal is allowed in part and disposed of as such.

¶27

The office shall proceed in terms of the above modification.

¶28

Office is directed to send back the Lower Court Records forthwith along with judgment of this appeal.

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

Amitesh/-

Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Shyamlal Mahto And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Shyamlal Mahto And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Tewary And Ors. Vs Asha Kumari and Ors.

MD Tasir Ali Ansari Vs Saira Bibi and Ors.

Karim Khan and Ors. Vs Bibi Samna Khatoon and Ors.

Smt. Jadubala Devi Vs State of Bihar

Enamul Haque Md. Enamul AndORS. Vs Nemi Chand Jain And Others

Kanhai Bind Vs Railways

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Raj Kumar Tewary And Ors. Vs Asha Kumari and Ors.

MD Tasir Ali Ansari Vs Saira Bibi and Ors.

Karim Khan and Ors. Vs Bibi Samna Khatoon and Ors.

Smt. Jadubala Devi Vs State of Bihar

Enamul Haque Md. Enamul AndORS. Vs Nemi Chand Jain And Others

Kanhai Bind Vs Railways

Enamul Haque Md. Enamul AndORS. Vs Nemi Chand Jain And Others