Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1026 (JHR)

State of Bihar v. Brinda Devi etc.

2013-09-05

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2013
JUDGMENT D.N. Upadhyay, J. These appeals have been preferred against common judgment dated 11.12.1987 and awards signed on 17.12.1937 whereby batch of L.A. Ref. Cases No. 145 of 1986 to 177 of 1986 have been disposed of and the learned Special Judge (Land Acquisition) Dhanbad, has enhanced the compensation amount against the acquired land @ Rs. 20,000/- per decimal for Gora 1 land or Thar 1 land and Rs. 12,000/- for Dhan III lands and for the rest of the land Dhanbad ratio will follow. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to these appeals are as under. 3. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the lands of the respondents were acquired in terms of the Notification No. 3139 Dly/Bok/13/75 dated 15.7.1975 issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and its valuation was decided on the basis of the rates indicated in the rate report. 4. It is submitted that the awardees had not adduced consistent evidence with regard to the valuation of the land acquired. They have not produced valid documents for coming to conclusion that the land acquired was valued @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Dhan 1 land and Rs. 12,000/- for Dhanbad II land. The sale-deeds (Exts. 2 and 2-A) do not indicate the nature of the land acquired under the notification; rather, those lands are related to Ghar angan and Vastu vari. The learned Special Judge has committed gross errors because he should not have considered the rates indicated for vastu bari land to be that of Dhan 1 land. No cogent reason has been assigned by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, against enhancement of the amount of compensation payable on account of the acquisition of the land. The rate chart submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have been accepted by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition. The enhancement against compensation amount of the land acquired is arbitrary and without valid reasons and, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appealing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the arguments and submitted that the awardees had adduced their evidences, both oral and documentary on the basis of which the learned Special Judge. Land Acquisition has enhanced the compensation amount of the land acquired. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appealing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the arguments and submitted that the awardees had adduced their evidences, both oral and documentary on the basis of which the learned Special Judge. Land Acquisition has enhanced the compensation amount of the land acquired. There is no lacuna, or irregularity or illegality in the judgment impugned passed in these appeals and it is liable to be upheld. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment against which these appeals have been preferred. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that lands of the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bokaro Steel Project vide Notification No. 3139-DLY-Bok-13/75 dated 15.7.1975, declaration No. DLY 230230 dated 22.1.1977. It is contended that the classification of the land made by the Land Acquisition Department is incorrect as the classification of the lands was noted from the old survey settlement record of right. As a matter of fact their land were first class paddy lands and first class Gora lands, but the Land Acquisition Department without spot verification copied the nature of lands from the survey settlement record of lights. But in course of time, they have reclaimed their land and it was allegedly converted into paddy fields. 6. It reveals that the awardees have adduced their evidence and have furnished sale-deeds (Exts. 2 and 2-A) disclosing the transaction which had taken place in the year 1975. Learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the rate(s) indicated in Ext. 2 for the transaction. He has considered Ext. 2-A to decide the valuation of the land acquired. According to Ext. 2-A. the transaction of vastu land in the year 1975 at mouza Batua was @ Rs. 16,700/- per acre. Learned Special Judge has further taken into consideration the reasons for which land was acquired. It is indicated that some lands were acquired in the year 1956 for installation of the Bokaro Steel Plant and some lands were also acquired further in the year 1975 for the purpose of expansion of the Township and other ancillaries including the land which is the subject-matter of the present appeals. It is indicated that some lands were acquired in the year 1956 for installation of the Bokaro Steel Plant and some lands were also acquired further in the year 1975 for the purpose of expansion of the Township and other ancillaries including the land which is the subject-matter of the present appeals. Considering the development and the rates prevailing during the relevant point of time the learned Special Judge has rightly come to the conclusion to fix the valuation of the land acquired to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) per acre for Dhan/Gora 1 land and Rs. 12,000/- per acre for Dhan III land. 7. For the reasons aforesaid. I do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. The judgment and award passed by, the learned Special Judge. Land Acquisition, Dhanbad, is hereby confirmed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.