Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 896 (JHR)

Union Of India v. Ramesh Turi

2018-04-20

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''Act'' in short) by the Union of India through Central Coal Fields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, being aggrieved by the common judgment along with other reference cases dated 01.03.1995 and award dated 13.03.1995 passed by the First Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Tribunal constituted under the Act at Ranchi in Reference Case No.5 of 1994. 3. The brief facts of the case is that in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Act, Central Government issued notification dated 13.01.1981 under Section 4 of the Act, which was published in the Gazette on 28.02.1981. The Reference Case No.5 of 1994 has arisen out of the petition for the claim of compensation filed by the claimant under Section 17 (2) of the said Act. The claimant whose land has been acquired under the said Act has received compensation under protest and has filed the petition for payment of higher compensation than that paid by the opposite party-respondent in respect of acquisition of land of village Paraj, bearing Khata no.15 plot nos.244/245/246/249 and 252 in total of area 0.695 acres. Acquisition of land of village Paraj and other adjoining villages was made by the appellant. Notification under Section 7 of the Act dated 28.04.1992 in this respect was published in the official Gazette on 15.05.1982 and the notification under Section 9 of the said Act dated 13.09.1983 in this respect was published in the official Gazette on 01.10.1983 and total compensation amount of Rs. 62,639.07/- was awarded to the claimant-Sukra Turi. The compensation was calculated at the following rates: (i) Paddy I @ Rs. 28,000/- per acre (ii) Paddy II @ Rs. 17,500/- per acre (iii) Paddy III @ Rs. 14,000/- per acre (iv) Tanr I @ Rs. 28,000/- per acre (v) Tanr II @ Rs. 7000/- per acre (vi) Other lands @ Rs. 875/- per acre 4. The aforesaid rate is said to inclusive of 12% escalation amount and solatium paid at the rate of 30% and interest at the prescribed rate for a period of nine years. 5. 14,000/- per acre (iv) Tanr I @ Rs. 28,000/- per acre (v) Tanr II @ Rs. 7000/- per acre (vi) Other lands @ Rs. 875/- per acre 4. The aforesaid rate is said to inclusive of 12% escalation amount and solatium paid at the rate of 30% and interest at the prescribed rate for a period of nine years. 5. The case of the claimant is that he has been paid compensation much below the prevailing market price and the opposite party has not properly assessed the valuation. It is also the case of the claimant that the land which has been acquired are well developed from before the acquisition and there is a big residential colony near the West Bokaro Colliery where there is coal mines, coal waste, coal washery of TISCO in existence from 20 years prior to the acquisition. It was also pleaded by the claimant that there is market, school, hospital, cinema hall and water supply just beside the land under acquisition. The land of village Paraj and Durukasmar is well developed having all modern facilities and there are several collieries such as Kedla, Laiya, Jharkhand, Tapin, Saree bars, Arra and West Bokaro Collieries and in these places they have got their respective well developed residential colonies. The lands has been recorded in Survey Khatiyan as agricultural land but with passage of time after establishment of residential colony and industrialisation in the area, the nature of land changed and the land has become fit for residential purposes and their commercial potentialities has increased. It is also the case of the claimant that at the time of acquisition, the land was being sold at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per decimal. The land is fertile, class one land having irrigational facility yielding three crops annually. Besides, there are private coal mines and main office of all these mines are situated in the village Paraj just by the side of the land under acquisition and the pucca road runs from Charhi to Ramgarh via Paraj and the land under acquisition is just by the side of the road. Further the case of the claimant is that the land of village Ichakdih and Panchanda were acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited in the year 1979-80 and the market price of the land in question was assessed at Rs. 2000/- per decimal. Further the case of the claimant is that the land of village Ichakdih and Panchanda were acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited in the year 1979-80 and the market price of the land in question was assessed at Rs. 2000/- per decimal. Hence, it is contended by the claimant that the value of the acquired land is twenty times higher than the price fixed by the opposite party. Besides 30% solatium, 12% escalation price and interest at the prescribed rate has also been claimed by the claimant. 6. On the other hand, the case of the appellant-opposite party is that the compensation has been paid to the claimant as per prevailing market rate on 30.01.1981 and the date on which notification under Section 4 of the Act was made, fair and adequate compensation was given. It is the further case of the appellant-opposite party that the land in question was surveyed on the spot by the competent officials of the Central Coalfields Limited in presence of the claimant and other villagers and the lands in question were classified in different categories and compensation was paid in accordance with law and rules considering the nature of land and their location and all other aspects. It was pleaded by the appellants-opposite party that the claimant has been paid more than the deserving compensation amount. It is also the case of the appellant-opposite party that the sale figure of particular land obtained at the relevant time is the only and the safest guideline for assessment of the compensation because in such sale figure only, all the development in and around the land concerned finds reflected and the market value has been determined after considering the present quality and future prospect and other development and industrial activity taking place there. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties the following issues were framed by the learned court:- (i) Has the compensation awarded to the claimants any conformity with the market value of the land prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 (i) of the Act? (ii) Are the claimants entitled to claim the enhanced compensation in respect of the lands under acquisition in question? (iii) Are the claimants entitled to claim solatium, escalation amount and interest at the prescribed rate on the market value of the lands as claimed? 8. (ii) Are the claimants entitled to claim the enhanced compensation in respect of the lands under acquisition in question? (iii) Are the claimants entitled to claim solatium, escalation amount and interest at the prescribed rate on the market value of the lands as claimed? 8. By the impugned judgment and award, the First Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Tribunal under the Act, Ranchi enhanced the amount of compensation at flat rate of Rs. 72,700/- per acre irrespective of their classification and in addition, claimants were also held to be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years up to the date of payment plus 12% additional compensation for the period of three years. 9. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land acquired could not be valued more than 200/- per decimal whereas in the impugned judgment and award, it has been enhanced to Rs. 727/- per decimal. He further submitted that soletium cannot be granted and amendment of Land Acquisition Act, 1982 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because this appeal has been filed under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. He further submits that no interest more than 5% can be granted and grant of compensation of the land at flat rate is not permissible. He further submits that Ext.-J series produced on behalf of the opposite party appellant have not been considered and some sale deeds executed subsequent to the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been considered and, therefore, Tribunal has committed an error in determining the valuation of the lands and therefore, impugned judgment granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 727/- per decimal with regard to land under acquisition is indefensible and ought not have been made on the basis of the evidence available in the record. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the acquisition was with regard to the surface right and minerals rights underneath the surface already belonged to the Central Coalfields Limited and that the claim of the respondent herein for enhancement of compensation having been not made within the prescribed period was barred by limitation. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the acquisition was with regard to the surface right and minerals rights underneath the surface already belonged to the Central Coalfields Limited and that the claim of the respondent herein for enhancement of compensation having been not made within the prescribed period was barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the tribunal without any material or evidence came to observe that the classification of land is a table work. Learned counsel for the appellant also fairly submits that this appeal has arisen out of the common impugned judgment and in another appeal from the said common judgment a co-ordinate bench of this Court has assessed compensation at Rs. 600/- per decimal that is Rs. 60,000/- per acre and the same has been upheld by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court in a common order dated 06.02.2017 and he also submits that the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant against the said order of the Division Bench of this Court has been dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. Since the compensation has already been fixed by the learned co-ordinate bench of this Court in respect of the same, common judgment out of which, this appeal has arose and the same has reached finality after the same was agitated up to the Supreme Court of India. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal be set aside. 10. Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this appeal is barred by limitation and that the classification of the land was made by the competent authority under the Act solely on the basis of the entries existing in the record of rights published in or about 1908 without any verification on the spot and as such it was not correct and, therefore, has rightly been ignored and a flat rate of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. Further, according to him, the process of industrialisation has started in the area much prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, though the land acquired was mentioned as agricultural land in the record of rights. Further, according to him, the process of industrialisation has started in the area much prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, though the land acquired was mentioned as agricultural land in the record of rights. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly fixed its market value on the higher side keeping in mind the potentiality thereof and that the amount of solatium as well as interest have rightly been granted in accordance with provisions of amended Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel fairly submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 10.11.2004 in a batch of appeals arising out of the same impugned award has assessed the flat rate of Rs. 600/- per decimal that is Rs. 60,000/- per acre subject to deduction of 20% as development cost as awarded by the learned Tribunal and besides that solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent years till the actual payment is made. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant herein challenged the order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the batch of appeals vide M.A. Nos. 50 of 1995, 51 to 58 of 1995, M.A. Nos. 60 to 62 of 1995, and M.A. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1995. He further submits that both the parties have preferred the L.P.A. Nos.02 to 05 of 2005, 783 to 787 of 2004, 792 of 2004, 794 to 802 of 2004, 804 and 805 of 2004, 819 to 832 of 2004, 07 to 15 of 2005, and by a common judgment dated 06.02.2017, the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court has upheld the said judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this court and did not interfere with the same. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that in para-32 of the batch of appeals bearing M.A. No. 50 of 1995 and other allied appeals, the learned coordinate bench of this court has held as under :- "32. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that in para-32 of the batch of appeals bearing M.A. No. 50 of 1995 and other allied appeals, the learned coordinate bench of this court has held as under :- "32. However, considering all the facts, letters and evidence of witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants as well as evidence of witnesses produced on behalf of the opposite parties and considering the sale deeds brought on record by the sides, I am of the view that determination of price of land on the basis of classification does not appear to be plausible and workable and at the same time price of land assessed by the Tribunal is not found to be proper. I reduce the rate of compensation from Rs. 727/- per decimal to Rs. 600/- per decimal and consequently from Rs. 72,700 per acre to Rs. 60,000/- per acre subject to deduction of 20% as development cost as awarded by the learned Tribunal." 12. Since the facts and circumstances of this case is the same as the facts and circumstances of the other cases in respect of which M.A. No. 50 of 1995 and other allied appeals has been disposed of by the Judgment of the Learned coordinate bench of this court, which has been affirmed by the Hon''ble Division bench of this court and the Special Leave petition in respect of which has been dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court India wherein the compensation has been reduced to the flat rate of Rs. 600/- decimal that is Rs60,000/- per acre besides that the claimant was held to be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the actual payment is made and also the attending facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the compensation fixed by the learned tribunal below is reduced to the flat rate of Rs. 600/- decimal that is Rs60,000/- per acre besides that the claimant will be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the actual payment is made. 600/- decimal that is Rs60,000/- per acre besides that the claimant will be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the actual payment is made. Accordingly the compensation fixed by the learned tribunal below in the impugned judgment and award being excessive is modified to the aforesaid extent. 13. Thus this appeal is allowed in part subject to the aforesaid modification in the award as mentioned above. There will be no order as to the costs. 14. In view of the disposal of the appeal the Interlocutory Application No.523 of 2004 also stands disposed of.