Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1761 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. Dineshwar Sao

2019-10-17

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The opposite party No. 2-appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 16.06.2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge-II-cum Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh by which the learned court below enhanced the rate of compensation to a flat rate of Rs. 2,520/- per decimal. 3. First Appeal No. 113 of 2007 has been filed in connection with Land Reference Case No. 698 of 1991 corresponding to Award No. 1. 4. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioners-objectors who are the respondents of this appeal have filed petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on being dissatisfied on the point of compensation which has been assessed by the Deputy Commissioner in the above mentioned award. 5. Award No. 1 in Land Reference Case No. 698 of 1991 in the instant First Appeal has been prepared for the land measuring an area of 0.34 acres in village Sondiha appertaining to Khata No. 95, Plot No. 599, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh. 6. The case of the petitioners-objectors in the learned court below was that the government authority has assessed a low rate after the acquisition of land and they pleaded that the areas of village Sondiha is developed one but the government authority has not assessed a proper rate. 7. The case of the opposite party No. 2-appellant in the learned court below was that the rate assessed by the state authority is genuine. The entire lands are situated by the side of forest land. Villages Sondiha is a very remote area and after the detailed inquiry, the rate of compensation has been determined by the government authority on the basis of the sale figure. 8. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following two points for determination:- (i) Whether the rate assessed by the government authority is genuine? (ii) Whether the petitioners-objectors are entitled to obtain the cost of the land on the enhanced rate? 9. In support of their contention, the petitioners-objectors have examined three witnesses and proved the documents. Besides proving certain documents, three witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the opposite party in the learned court below. (ii) Whether the petitioners-objectors are entitled to obtain the cost of the land on the enhanced rate? 9. In support of their contention, the petitioners-objectors have examined three witnesses and proved the documents. Besides proving certain documents, three witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the opposite party in the learned court below. The learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record assessed the valuation and also considered that in L.R. Case Nos. 568 of 1992 and 569 of 1992 of the adjacent village Sondiha, the rate of acquired land has been enhanced as assessed as Rs. 2,520/- per decimal and determined the compensation as Rs. 2,520/- per decimal. 10. Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below passed the impugned judgment against the weight of evidence and materials in the record and the learned court below could not properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the appellant in the learned court below in their proper perspective. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to consider the fact that the valuation of the acquired land has been done by the Collector, Hazaribagh after obtaining the sale-deeds from the office of the Sub- Registrar, Hazaribagh and failed to take note of the fact that the Sondiha village is situated in a very remote area without having any valuation of significance and not even fit for construction of any house. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to consider that the collieries are situated 20 to 30 kilometers away from the acquired land. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside and this appeal be allowed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, the only point for determination in this appeal is whether the learned court below rightly enhanced the compensation amount by determining the same at Rs. 2,520/- per decimal. 12. Perusal of the record reveals that out of the three witnesses examined by the petitioners-objectors in the learned court below, AW-1 Juthan Sao has stated that the acquired land is situated near the road and there is a railway station in front of the acquired land. 2,520/- per decimal. 12. Perusal of the record reveals that out of the three witnesses examined by the petitioners-objectors in the learned court below, AW-1 Juthan Sao has stated that the acquired land is situated near the road and there is a railway station in front of the acquired land. He has further stated that there are so many collieries situated within a distance of 1 to 1½ kilometers from the acquired land. 13. AW-2 Shyam Lal Sao has stated that Kuju-Bargaon road passes by the side of the acquired land. In his cross-examination he has stated that in the survey the acquired land has been shown near the road. 14. AW-3 Khemlal Sao stated that the acquired land is situated near the road. In his cross-examination, he has stated that a pond is also situated near the acquired land for irrigation. He has further stated the acquired lands are valuable lands. 15. Apart from the oral testimony, the applicants proved the registered sale-deeds which have been marked as Exts.1, 1/a, and 1/b, judgment passed in different L.R. Case Nos. have been marked as Exts.2, 2/a and 2/b. 16. From the side of opposite party, OPW-1 Johan Beg has stated that the rate assessed by the government was correct. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the road from Kuju to Bargaon is situated near the acquired land and there is also a coal depot of Tata Company near the acquired land. In para-9 he has admitted that there are other collieries at a distance of one kilometer from the acquired land. 17. OPW-2 Nand Kishore Singh has stated that in villages Sondiha, the lands have been acquired for the benefit of the C.C.L. for the purpose of railway siding. He has also stated that the rate of land which has been assessed by the government authority is genuine. In paragraph-9 he has admitted about the existence of the road from Kuju to Bargaon adjacent to the acquired land. He, however, denied the existence of any colliery near the acquired land. 18. OPW-3 Prayag Prasad Sahu has stated that the lands were acquired for the purpose of coal handling plant and the rate of compensation which was given to the petitioners- objectors was correct. But in para-8 of his evidence he has admitted that after acquisition of land the area became developed. 18. OPW-3 Prayag Prasad Sahu has stated that the lands were acquired for the purpose of coal handling plant and the rate of compensation which was given to the petitioners- objectors was correct. But in para-8 of his evidence he has admitted that after acquisition of land the area became developed. He also admitted the existence of other collieries in the same locality. 19. Apart from the oral testimony, the opposite party inter alia proved the valuation khatians of village Bhadwa marked as Exts. A and A/1, rate reports related with village Bhadwa marked as Exts. B and B/1, sale figure of the lands situated at village Bhadwa has been marked as Ext. C, registered deeds of sale related with villages Bhadwa and Sondiha have been marked as Exts. D and D/1 and they have also filed other documents related to village Sondiha which is not related to the present appeal. 20. After going through the evidence on the record, I find that vide Ext. D.15 decimals of land have been sold at the rate of Rs. 50/- per decimal in village Bhadwa in the year 1985. Perusal of Exts. 1 and 1/b reveal that lands of village Bhadwa has been sold at the rate of Rs. 3076.92/- per decimal in the year 1988 and at the rate of Rs. 2041.53 per decimal in the year 1984. Ext.1/a shows that the registered deed of sale has been executed at Rs. 3,500/- per decimal in the year 1989. 21. It is not disputed that village Bhadwa and village Sondiha are adjacent villages and their geographical situations are similar. It is also not disputed that in L.R. Case Nos. 568 of 1992 and 569 of 1992, the rate of acquired land has been assessed at Rs. 2,520/- per decimal. As already indicated above, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses of the rival parties to demolish or discredit their testimony and through the evidence put forth by them. The following facts have been proved by the petitioners- objectors:- (i) Kuju-Bargaon road was adjacent to the acquired land. (ii) Collieries are within a distance of about one kilometer from the acquired land. (iii) There is a pond near the acquired land for irrigation. (iv) There is a coal depot of Tata Company near the acquired land. The following facts have been proved by the petitioners- objectors:- (i) Kuju-Bargaon road was adjacent to the acquired land. (ii) Collieries are within a distance of about one kilometer from the acquired land. (iii) There is a pond near the acquired land for irrigation. (iv) There is a coal depot of Tata Company near the acquired land. (v) Village Bhadwa and village Sondiha are adjacent villages and their geographical situations are similar. (vi) In L.R. Case Nos. 568 of 1992 and 569 of 1992 the rate of acquired land has been assessed at Rs. 2,520/- per decimal and the same has not been challenged. (vii) The land of village Bhadwa has been sold at the rate of Rs. 3076.92 per decimal in the year 1988. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, I have no hesitation in holding that the enhanced rate of compensation by determining the same at the rate of Rs. 2,520/- per decimal as made by the learned court below is proper. The point of determination is answered accordingly. 23. In view of the discussions made above, the judgment and award dated 16.06.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-II-cum Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh is confirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any cost. 24. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. 25. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.