Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 373 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2011-04-27

D.N.PATEL

body2011
Order Per D.N. Patel, J.-The present writ petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 17th July, ,2009 (Annexure3 to the memo of petition), passed in Scheduled Area Regulation Appeal No. 17 R-15 of 2002-03, as well as the order, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, dated 30th November, 2009, passed in Scheduled Area Regulation Revision No. 85 of 2009 (Annexure-5 to the memo of petition), whereby, both the authorities below have enhanced the amount of compensation, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1905 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1905 for the sake of brevity). The first authority i.e. Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, has fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per Kattha, whereas the appellate authority has fixed the said amount of compensation, upon an appeal preferred by the original applicants of an application under Section 71 A of the Act, 1905, at Rs. 1,48,000/- per Kattha. This order passed by the lower appellate authority has been confirmed by the revisional authority i. e. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, upon a revision preferred by the petitioners. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no reason, worth the name, has been assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in the impugned order dated 17th July, 2009 (Annexure-3) for enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.1,48,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land, in question, is having Plot No's. 98, 99, 100 and 101, appertaining to Khata No. 53, of Thana No. 203, Police Station-Sukhdeo Nagar, Mauza-Hehal, District-Ranchi and for comparison, the petitioners have submitted that as per the registered sale deed of Plot No. 97, the price of the land is Rs. 25,000/- per Kattha and for another Plot, it is Rs. 48,000/- per Kattha, as stated in the internal page no. 3 and internal page no. 4 of the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 17th July, 2009 and, therefore, even if the case of the respondents is taken on its highest pitch, the amount of compensation can only exceed up to Rs. 48,000/per kattha. Nonetheless, the petitioners as per the order dated 30th March, 2010, passed in this writ petition, have deposited Rs. 50,000/- per Kattha before the first authority. 48,000/per kattha. Nonetheless, the petitioners as per the order dated 30th March, 2010, passed in this writ petition, have deposited Rs. 50,000/- per Kattha before the first authority. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the figure of Rs. 1, 48,000/- per Kattha as compensation cannot come in the mind of- the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, from heaven or sky, as there ought to have been some basis. Looking to the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 17th July, 2009 (Annexure-3), the order passed by the Deputy commissioner is thoroughly a non-speaking order and is a baseless one, because the highest price of• the land, situated in the nearby vicinity of the land, in question, is Rs. 48,000/per Kattha whereas the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has fixed the amount of compensation at a rate of Rs. 1,48,000/per Kattha and, therefore, such an excessive and exorbitant amount of compensation deserves to be quashed and set aside. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the revisional authority i.e. by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, while passing the order dated 30th November, 2009 (Annexure-5) and the reasons, whatsoever given by that revisional authority, are not the reasons in the eyes of law, because in paragraph no. 7 of the order, passed by the revisional authority, it has been stated that the land, in question, is nearer to the Bank of India, Main Branch, Pandra and also keeping in mind the value fixed by the Government, the compensation of the land in question, has been fixed at Rs.1,48,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these reasons are no reasons in the eyes of law, because a copy of the governmental valuation, which has been relied upon by the revisional authority, was never supplied to the writ petitioners. The revisional authority cannot rely upon a document, which has never been given to the petitioners. Moreover, merely because the land is situated nearby the Bank of India, Main Branch, Pandra, it does not amount that the compensation of the land will be at Rs. 1,48,000/- and, therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. The revisional authority cannot rely upon a document, which has never been given to the petitioners. Moreover, merely because the land is situated nearby the Bank of India, Main Branch, Pandra, it does not amount that the compensation of the land will be at Rs. 1,48,000/- and, therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the contesting respondents, who has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, as well as the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and against the concurrent findings of fact, the present writ petition has been preferred. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the contesting private respondents that the basis has been given by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, as well as the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in the impugned orders for fixing the compensation at Rs. 1,48,000/- per Kattha and hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 17th July, 2009 at Annexure-3 as well as the order, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, dated 30th November, 2009 at Annexure-5, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (I) The present petitioners claim ownership, possession and title upon the property, in question, which are Plot Nos. 98, 99, 100 and 101 of Khata No. 53 of Thana No. 203, Police Station-Sukhdeo Nagar, Mauza-Hehal, District-Ranchi. An application was preferred by the respondents under Section 71 A of the Act, 1908 and as per the provision of the Act, 1908, the Special Officer; Scheduled Area Regulation, fixed 'the compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per Kattha. The total area of the land, in question, is approximately 90 Katthas. Against the order, passed by the first authority i.e. the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, an appeal was preferred by the respondents for enhancement of the compensation amount. (II) It appears that in the appeal, preferred by the respondents, two examples and illustrations were given by the present petitioners to arrive at a correct compensation. The prevailing price of the land in the near vicinity of the land, in question, is at Rs. 25,0001 - per Kattha and for another land, it is Rs. (II) It appears that in the appeal, preferred by the respondents, two examples and illustrations were given by the present petitioners to arrive at a correct compensation. The prevailing price of the land in the near vicinity of the land, in question, is at Rs. 25,0001 - per Kattha and for another land, it is Rs. 48,000/- per Kattha. These are of the lands bearing Plot No. 97, which is just adjacent to the land, in question. Thus, the highest price is at Rs. 48,000/- per Kattha. These facts have been stated by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, in his order dated 17th July, 2009 at Annexure-3 (internal page nos. 3 and 4). Looking to the last paragraph of the impugned order dated 17th July, 2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, it appears that without assigning any reason whatsoever, abruptly after citing the aforesaid two illustrations of the price; one at Rs. 25,000/- per Kattha and another at Rs. 48,000/- per Kattha, the compensation of the land has been fixed at Rs.1,48,000/- per Kattha. This is approximately ten times more than the amount of compensation, fixed by the first authority. Looking to the last paragraph of the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. it appears that no reason has been assigned for fixing such a high amount of compensation and when no reason have been given the order will be an arbitrary order. Thus the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, is a non-speaking order and hence arbitrary in nature and, as such, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. (III) It further appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioners preferred a revision against the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and the revisional authority i.e. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, has also dismissed the revision application, preferred by the present petitioners and has pointed out in paragraph no. 7 of his order that the land, in question, is nearby the Bank of India, Main Branch. Pandra and moreover, looking to the price fixed by the Government, the compensation at Rs. 1,48,000/- is just and proper. These reasons are not reasons in the eyes of law. Though the revisional authority is relying upon some governmental valuation, nothing has been stated that upon which governmental document, the revisional authority is relying upon. Pandra and moreover, looking to the price fixed by the Government, the compensation at Rs. 1,48,000/- is just and proper. These reasons are not reasons in the eyes of law. Though the revisional authority is relying upon some governmental valuation, nothing has been stated that upon which governmental document, the revisional authority is relying upon. Nothing has been stated by the revisional authority in the order which part of the dispute has been pointed out the Government valuation. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, cannot use his own wisdom or knowledge to decide a dispute between the parties. personal knowledge must be put aside. In a court, personal knowledge must not be given weight-age to. Never a copy of the Government valuation has been given to the petitioners. Whenever any document is relied upon by an authority such a document ought to have been taken on record officially, a copy whereof ought to have been given to the party to the dispute. Perhaps, everything has been lost sight of by the revisional authority and hence the order, passed by the revisional authority, is also arbitrary in nature and hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside. (IV) Looking to the orders, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, it appears that neither of them has given any basis for the compensation of Rs. 1,48,000/- per Kattha. This figure cannot come in the mind of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner from heaven or sky. There ought to have been some basis. there ought to have been a calculation of the compensation. Abruptly an ipse dixit figure cannot be fixed for compensation. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, both the orders, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, as well as the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, which are at Annexures-3 and 5 respectively to the memo of this petition, are hereby quashed and set aside and I hereby remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for his fresh decision, without being influenced by the order, passed by himself as well as without being influenced by the order, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. The decision will be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. The decision will be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. One more thing is to be kept in mind that in the appeal, the burden to prove the enhancement of compensation is upon the appellant, who are respondents herein. Personal knowledge will not be used by either of the authorities i.e. either by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, or by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal, preferred by the respondents herein, is restored to its original file with the same number, which is hereby directed to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. Parties to this writ• petition shall cooperate with the hearing of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.