Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1568 (JHR)

Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shashi Mahto

2012-11-01

P.P.BHATT

body2012
Judgment By Court: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This batch of appeals arises out of the common judgment dated 21.5.1990 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 10/1990 to 30/1990. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence produced on record in arriving at assessment of value of land in question. It is further submitted that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge is highly excessive and contrary to the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration Exhibit A, the rate report filed on behalf of the State and the Exhibit B, the sale deed filed by the appellants. It is further submitted that the learned court below has committed a serious error of law in coming to the conclusion that the rate report is not admissible in law. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that merely because the sale deed in support of the rate report was not filed, the rate report cannot be admissible in law. It is also submitted that the learned court below committed a serious error of law even after coming to the conclusion that the rate report was not admissible has relied on the said report. It is also submitted that the learned court below has wrongly allowed the interest and misinterpreted the provisions of the amendment Act of 1984 and therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad, deserves to be set aside. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and submitted that the learned court below has passed the judgment and award in accordance with law after taking into consideration the documentary and oral evidence produced on record. It is further submitted that the assessment/determination of compensation has been made by the learned court below on the basis of valuation described in various sale deeds and the rate report, which was produced on record. It is further submitted that the assessment/determination of compensation has been made by the learned court below on the basis of valuation described in various sale deeds and the rate report, which was produced on record. It is further submitted that the learned court below has made a detailed discussion about the oral as well as documentary evidence in para 8 and 9 of the said judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that there were group of cases in L.A. Case No. 35/1983-84 out of which first appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 61/1990 to 94/1990 (total 33 cases) and First Appeal Nos. 105 to 137 of 2008 have been decided by this Court by its judgment and Order dated 10.11.2008. The learned counsel for the respondents have also drawn my attention to the said judgment reported in 2009(1) JLJR 129 . 5. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents and from perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed in Land Reference Cases and also the record of proceedings, it appears that the learned court below has passed the judgment and award after careful consideration of the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence produced on record. From perusal of para 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the learned court below has taken into account the various sale deeds of surrounding adjacent lands produced on record. Learned court below has also taken into consideration the principle enumerated by the Hon'ble Court passed in its judgment and accordingly the assessment for compensation was done by the learned court below. It further appears that the learned court below has made thread bare analysis of documentary and oral evidence on record in the findings recorded by it and has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award in group of Land Acquisition Reference Cases. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant can not be accepted in view of the detailed justification given by the learned court below. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant can not be accepted in view of the detailed justification given by the learned court below. I have also perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents reported in 2009(1) JLJR 129 and from perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the Batch of Appeals have been arisen out of common judgment dated 21.3.1998 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Cases Nos. 61/1990 to 94/1990 (total 33 cases). The present appeals have also been arisen out of the same L.A. Case No. 35/1983-84 in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 10/90 to 30/90 and therefore, para 9 and 10 of the Judgment reported in 2009(1) JLJR 129 are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same run as under; “09. Eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants who said that the lands were situated in beside ChasDhanbad main road, where several projects of B.C.C.L. were going on and the acquired lands are within the industrial area having the facility of water, electricity etc. The parties also relied on certain documents. The learned L.A. Judge found that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the valuation of the acquired land on the basis of Gora I land shown at serial no. 9 of the rate report (Ext C)which was at the rate of Rs. 16,667/-per acre as per the sale deed executed on 26.8.1982; but the sale deed at serial no. 3 which are at the rate of Rs. 1,11,250/-per acre relating to a land purchased by B.C.C.L. itself on 19.2.1981 and the rate shown at serial no. 10 which was Rs. 40,000/-per acre and the rate shown at serial no. 16 at the rate of Rs. 27,727/-per acre were not considered without assigning any reason or disbelieving the same, and therefore, the learned L.A. Judge held that average rate should have been fixed on the basis of the sales shown in the rate report and the fixation of price of land solely on the basis of sale price mentioned at serial no. 9 only was quite arbitrary and improper. Exhibit 2 was a sale deed dated 16.11.1981 with regard to Gora II land of the same village which was sold at Rs. 250/-per decimal i.e., Rs. 25,000/-per acre. 9 only was quite arbitrary and improper. Exhibit 2 was a sale deed dated 16.11.1981 with regard to Gora II land of the same village which was sold at Rs. 250/-per decimal i.e., Rs. 25,000/-per acre. The sale deed dated 1.7.1983 shown that Biad land was sold at the rate of Rs. 600/-per Katha which comes to about Rs. 400/-per decimal. The judgment of Land Reference Case No. 10 to 30/90 was also produced as Ext. 1. The L.A. Judge found that in the said case the L.A. Judge relied on the aforesaid deeds as well as Gokhlay Report and fixed the rate of Gora I land at Rs. 40,000/-; the rate of Bahal land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 80,000/-; rate of Kanali land at Rs. 50,000/-; Baid land at the rate of Rs. 26,666/-; Gora II land at the rate of Rs. 13,333/-; Gora III land at the rate of Rs. 3,333/-; and Parti land at the rate of Rs. 2,500/-per acre. However, the L.A. Judge found force in the submission of the awardees that the acquired land was situated within the industrial area, where several B.C.C.L. projects were going on, and therefore, the acquired lands have similar potentialities, and therefore, the valuation of all lands should be fixed at the same rate. It also took into consideration that the prices of land within B.C.C.L. area were increasing substantially due to development of industries and construction of quarters and bungalows of B.C.C.L. After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it found that in all fairness, modest and the average valuation of the acquired lands should not be less than Rs. 250/-per decimal i.e., Rs. 25,000/-per acre. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, the argument of Mr. Mehta that an average flat rate should not have been fixed cannot be accepted. The L.A. Judge, has rightly held that an average flat rate should be fixed for the lands acquired, as they were of similar potentialities and valuation. Further in view of the rate report (Ext. C) relied by the State and B.C.C.L., it was not necessary to consider Ext. A-1 and A-2 separately. Ext. A-1 is a sale deed dated 17.2.1981 by which one acre of land was sold for Rs. 1,000/-only and Ext. Further in view of the rate report (Ext. C) relied by the State and B.C.C.L., it was not necessary to consider Ext. A-1 and A-2 separately. Ext. A-1 is a sale deed dated 17.2.1981 by which one acre of land was sold for Rs. 1,000/-only and Ext. A-2 is a sale deed executed on 26.8.1982 for 6 decimals of land sold for Rs. 1,000/-only which comes to Rs. 16,667/-per acre. But, it has not been brought on the record that the lands sold under the said Exts. A-1 and A-2 had similar potentialities with the lands in question. In the judgment of Kanta Devi (Supra) the question of deduction towards development charges was considered. In the said case, the lands were acquired for establishment of a new grain market, rest house, staff quarters etc of the Market Committee. In the present case, admittedly the lands were acquired for the mining purpose for which no development of land is required. After considering the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.” 6. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the present cases are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and therefore, no further detailed discussion is required to be made about the oral and documentary evidence as in the present group of cases, similar set of evidence is there on record and the same has already been discussed in the aforesaid reported judgment. In view of the above position, these first appeals deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the all first appeals stand dismissed with no order as to cost. 8. Since these land Acquisition Reference Cases have been arisen out of L.A. Case No. 35/1983-84 and almost 30 years have lapsed and therefore the process of disbursement of amount order to be carried out expeditiously. Let the LCR be remitted back to the court below concerned.