Rabindra Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

¶1

2025:JHHC:10153

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

F.A. No. 88 of 2024

¶4

Rabindra Kumar Roy, aged about 54 years

¶5

Rohit Kumar Bharti, aged about 49 years Both sons of Narsingh Roy

¶6

Sashi Shekhar Bharti, aged about 51 years

¶7

Lalit Kumar Bharti, aged about 49 years. Both sons of Late Panchanand Roy All residents of Village- Bara Nokhil, P.O.- Koridih, P.S.- Jasidih, District- Deoghar. At present resident of Belabagan, Circular Road, near Satsang Gate (Mouza- Madarichak), P.O.- Deoghar, P.S.- Deoghar Town, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶8

… … Petitioners/Objectors/Appellants -Versus-

¶9

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar

¶10

… … Opposite party/Respondent/Respondent

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG I

¶13

¶14

07 /05.03.2025 This first appeal has been filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for enhancement of the compensation amount with respect to Award No.14 related to the double storeyed building constructed over the acquired land awarded vide Award dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka in Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 2019.

¶15

2. The appellants have also prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka in Revocation Case No.06 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellants for re-calculation of the compensation for Award No.14 was declined by observing that detailed award has already been passed.

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are only aggrieved by quantum of compensation as

¶17

1

¶18

2025:JHHC:10153

¶19

discussed in Paragraph-12 of the impugned judgement to the extent that there has been no payment of compensation with respect to the first floor of the construction which relates to Award No.14. He has further submitted that the area of construction over 382.5 Sq. ft. of land is not in dispute and so far as the rate is concerned, the same has been taken as Rs.3051/- per sq. ft. which is as per the rate chart, but while computing the amount, only the area of land has been taken into consideration and construction over the first floor has not been taken into consideration. He has placed the plaint and the written statement and submitted that the nature and the extent of construction is not in dispute.

¶20

4. The learned counsel has submitted that on account of this aspect of the matter, the quantum of compensation with respect to the building ought to have been twice and instead of Rs.11,67,007/- as computed by multiplying the constructed area on the land i.e. 382.5 sq. ft. by the rate Rs.3051/- per sq. ft, an equivalent amount should be given for the first floor of the construction also and accordingly, the award be enhanced.

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the land was non-transferrable. He referred to Paragraph-4 of the impugned Award wherein it has been recorded that the structure and use of the building was correct, but the documents made available on record was not proper to ascertain the claim of the appellants. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the stand taken by the respondent in its written statement and submission made before the learned court, the amount of compensation with respect to the structure in connection with which the appellants have a grievance does not call for any interference.

¶22

6. At this, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the objection filed by the appellants, it was clearly mentioned that there is a double storey pucca building over the property and the measuring area of the acquired land was mentioned as 382.5 sq. ft. and the rate at which the appellants claimed was @ Rs.5302/- per sq. ft. and the appellants had also mentioned that as per the market value,

¶23

2

¶24

2025:JHHC:10153

¶25

the compensation for single storey comes to Rs.20,28,015/- and for the double storey building, it would be twice i.e. 40,56,030/-. Such statement was made in Paragraph-2(d)(v). It was further case of the appellants before the court that calculation was done without granting them an opportunity of hearing and the amount of Rs.11,32,240/- was awarded instead of Rs.40,56,030/- for the ground floor and the first floor. He submitted that in response to such statement, the reply was evasive and it was never the case of the respondent that for the purposes of double storey building, twice the amount payable for ground floor is not to be paid.

¶26

7. Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 2019 arises out of the reference made by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar vide Letter No.415/Bhu.A dated 10.06.2019 and Letter No.1076/Bhu.A dated 15.10.2019 in Land Acquisition Case No.36/2017-18 (in connection with acquisition of 0.878 decimals of land situated at Village- Madarichak, P.S. No.256, J.B. No.1/2884, Dag No.253-E / T.P. No.1471) for construction of overbridge in between Jasidih and Baidyanathdham Railway Station near level crossing 04E, Satsang Nagar Deoghar. Award No.7 was prepared against acquisition of the land awarding compensation of Rs.23,173/and Award No.14 was prepared against the double storeyed building constructed over the acquired land awarding compensation of Rs.11,32,240/-. On receiving notices, the objectors/appellants who were the joint owners of the acquired land filed their objection against the amount of compensation fixed by the Government.

¶27

8. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka under Section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013 and the case was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 2019. The State of Jharkhand filed its written statement.

¶28

9. The main objection of the objectors/appellants was that the land Acquisition Officer / Collector, Deoghar acquired 0.878 decimals of land equivalent to 382.5 Sq. ft. of Survey Plot No. 253-E / T.P. No.1471 with part of the double storeyed pucca building existing over

¶29

3

¶30

2025:JHHC:10153

¶31

the acquired land. The appellants claimed that the land the double storeyed pucca building was a commercial area and their houses were being used for commercial purpose, but the amount of compensation determined by the District Land Acquisition Officer was very less than the actual amount of compensation. The State admitted the acquisition of the land and the building structure of the appellants, but contended that the khatiyan of the land is with the C.B.I. and as per the report of the Circle Officer, Deoghar submitted vide Letter No.1071/Ra dated 09.08.2018, the amount of compensation of the land and building was ascertained in legal and genuine manner taking the land as raiyati non-transferable in nature.

¶32

10. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka framed the following issues:

¶33

(i) Whether the land and structure acquired by the O.P. exists in commercial area? If so, its effect?

¶34

(ii) Whether the acquired land is a transferrable basauri land? If so, its effect?

¶35

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any interest in terms of provisions of Section 69(2) of the Act?

¶36

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the cost of this litigation?

¶37

(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to ger enhance compensation or not?

¶38

11. The appellants examined only one witness namely, Rabindra Kumar Roy as PW-1 and exhibited the following documents: Exhibit-1 True copy of Sale Deed No.2010/1984 Exhibit-2 True copy of Partition Deed No.2293/1979

¶39

Exhibit-3 to 3/3 Photocopy of commercial receipts of Deoghar Municipal Corporation

¶40

Exhibit-4 Lease and Licence Agreement

¶41

Exhibit-5 to 5/3 Coloured photographs of the building

¶42

Exhibit-6 Photocopy of Commercial Electric Bill

¶43

4

¶44

2025:JHHC:10153

¶45

Exhibit-7 Photocopy of valuation chart 2017-18

¶46

Exhibit-8, 9, 10, 11 Four Lease Deeds Exhibit-12 Phtocopy of Memo No.109/Bhu.A, Deoghar dated

¶47

21.01.2021

¶48

12. The State of Jharkhand neither adduced any oral evidence, nor produced any document on its behalf.

¶49

13. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka decided the Issue Nos. (ii), (i), (v), (iii) and (iv) at Paragraph-10, 11, 12 and 13 respectively which are quoted as under:

¶50

“ 10. Now, I am going to discuss on the issue. First of all, I take the

¶51

issue No. (ii) for discussion, which is as follows:

¶52

Issue No. (ii) - Whether the acquired land is a transferable basauri land. If so, its effect?

¶53

P.W.1 has clearly stated that the land acquired is Basauri Plot No. 253, Mouza – Madarichak No. 256, P.S. Deoghar Town, Plot No. 1461 and total are of plot is 1 acre 20 decimal and previously the owner and their ancestors and others had purchased the land through different sale-deeds and the Axix Bank and Allahabad Bank are on rent in the said building along with other shops are around it and the sale-deed has been marked as Exhibit 1. Exibit 3 to 3/3 clearly shows that the said land is Basauri and transferable. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners/objectors.

¶54

11. Issue No. (i) - Whether the land and structure acquired by the O.P. exists in commercial area. If so, its effect?

¶55

From the evidence of P.W. 1 it has come that in the said building two banks are running on rent and also the photographs of the building shows that Allhaband Bank and Axix Bank are on rent in the building along with other shops and also Exhibit 6 shows that commercial electric bill is being paid to the Jharkahnd Bijli Bitran Nigam Limited. Exhibit 8, 9, 10 and 11 four lease deeds are related to the lease deed of Allahabad Bank and also Exhibit 11 the lease deed shows that the objectors have given the said building to another person for commercial purpose and this area comes within

¶56

5

¶57

2025:JHHC:10153

¶58

the purview of commercial area and the land and building acquired in the said commercial area. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the petitioners/objectors that the land and structure acquired by the Opposite party existed in the commercial area.

¶59

12. Now, I come on the added Issue No. (v) -Whether the petitioner is entitled to get enhance compensation amount or not?

¶60

From the above issues as discussed above, it has come clearly that the said land and building are situated for commercial purpose and Exhibit 7, the valuation chart of the building as well as land of ward No. 8 of Deoghar for the 2017-18 also shows that as per the valuation chart the rate of land is Rs. 28,74,861.6 per acre. In this case Award No. 7, it is admitted case that land of the objector of 0.878 decimal was acquired. So, according to the market value the valuation of that land of Award No. 7 would be Rs. 28,74,861.6 x 0.878 = 25,24,128/-. Hence, I find that the compensation was not prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar according to law. Since it has come in the cross examination of petitioner/objector P.W.1 Rabindra Kumar Roy that no map of for preparing any building has been passed by the Municipality. Hence, petitioners/objectors are not entitled to get compensation for Deluxe Building/Apartment rather they are entitled at the rate of Building with RCC Roof. Exhibit 7 shows the value of building with RCC roof as 3051 per Sq. ft. and acquired land is 382.5 Sq.ft, so the valuation of acquired building comes to Rs. 3051 x 382.5 = Rs. 11,67,007/and the building is related to Award No. 14. So, the award of compensation as mentioned in Award No. 14 is according to Act. Hence, I find that the objectors are entitled to get the enhanced amount of compensation and also this issue is also decided in favour of the petitioners/objectors.

¶61

13. Issue Nos. - (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any interest in terms of provisions of section 69(2) of the Act? and (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the cost of this litigation?

¶62

As per Section 69(2), there is provision of 12% interest on such market value from the date of publication and so I find that petitioners/objectors are entitle to get the interest of 12% per annum

¶63

6

¶64

2025:JHHC:10153

¶65

but the petitioners/objectors are not entitled to get the litigation cost. Accordingly, issue No. (iii) is decided in favour of the petitioners/ objectors but issue No. (iv) is not decided in favour of the petitioners/objectors.”

¶66

14. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka decided the Issue Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) in favour of the objectors/appellants, but decided the Issue No. (iv) against them and further held at Paragraph-14 that the petitioners/objectors are entitled to get solatium amount as per the Act and it is in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired. Paragraph-14 is quoted as under:

¶67

“ 14. “Section 30 Award of solatium – (1) The collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a “solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount.” Hence, the petitioner/objector is liable to get the solatium amount as per Act, and it is in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired. ”

¶68

15. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka ordered that the petitioners/objectors are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.25,24,128/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakh Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Eight only), plus 100% solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation, plus 12% interest from the date of publication of the Award No.7 for the land and the petitioners/objectors are also entitled to get Rs.11,67,007/- (Eleven Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Seven only), plus 100% solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation, plus 12% interest from the date of publication of the Award No.14 for their houses. The Opposite Party/respondent was directed to pay the aforesaid enhanced compensation amount within a period of three months to the petitioners/objectors and correct the Award No. 7 and 14 of the petitioners/objectors accordingly.

¶69

7

¶70

2025:JHHC:10153

¶71

16. Considering the nature of dispute as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the only point of determination in the present case is as to whether the appellants were entitled for compensation for the ground floor as well as first floor or the compensation would be confined to the sq. ft. area of the land and the rate given in the rate chart. This is relatable to paragraph no.12 and issue no. (v) of the impugned judgement as quoted above.

¶72

17. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the objectors had clearly taken a plea that the constructed area was 382.5 sq. ft and for the ground floor, it would come to Rs.20,28,015/- @ Rs.5302/- per sq. ft. and for the first floor equivalent amount would be payable and consequently the total amount would be Rs.40,56,030/- for the double storey building, but only an amount of Rs.11,32,240/- was awarded.

¶73

18. From perusal of the written statement, which was filed before the learned court, the claim of the appellants that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the ground floor and equivalent compensation even for the first floor has not been disputed by the State. The area of construction to the extent of 382.5 sq. ft. is also not in dispute.

¶74

19. This Court further finds that the learned court has also recorded in Paragraph-12 with respect to the area of construction and has taken the same as 382.5 sq. ft., but the rate has been taken as Rs.3051/- per Sq. ft taking the rate for building with RCC roof commercial instead of deluxe building/apartment and has calculated the compensation @ Rs.11,67,007/-, but the award is completely silent with respect to the point as to whether the appellants would be entitled for equivalent compensation with respect to the first floor also.

¶75

20. No material from the records has been point out by the learned counsel for the respondent with respect to denial of the claim of the appellants that equivalent compensation was payable even for the first floor of the building. Upon perusal of the objection and the written statement filed by the State, this Court finds that the claim of the

¶76

8

¶77

2025:JHHC:10153

¶78

appellants that separate calculation has to be made for each floor was not denied in the written statement.

¶79

21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned court has failed to take into consideration that the building was admittedly double storeyed and therefore, the compensation having been awarded only for the ground floor i.e. area of 382.5 sq. ft., the construction in connection with the first floor has been totally omitted.

¶80

22. Accordingly, Award dated 20.12.2021 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka is fit to be modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶81

23. Consequently, the value with respect to the building related to Award No.14 is enhanced to (Rs.3051 x 382.5) x 2 i.e. Rs.11,67,007.5 x 2 = Rs.23,34,015/-.

¶82

24. The entire amount under Award No.14 is to be re-calculated on the basis of the aforesaid enhanced value of Rs.23,34,015/-. The other components of the awarded amount are also required to be recalculated and added in terms of the impugned judgement.

¶83

25. This first appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the award.

¶84

26. Office is directed to prepare a decree.

¶85

27. There shall be no order as to cost.

¶86

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶87

Saurav/

¶88

9

Rabindra Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamruddin Ansari Vs Salamat Ansari And Ors.

Vinay Kumar Manjhi And Ors. Vs Dhirendra Nath Baid And Ors.

Mahadeo Lohar Vs Sita Devi

Shanti Kunwar And Ors. Vs Parashnath Keshri And Anr.

Rubi Devi Vs Ritesh Kumar Gupta

Dr Kafil Ahmad Vs Krishna Nayak