JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. F.A. No. 82 of 2017 has been filed challenging the judgment dated 23.03.2013 (award sealed and signed on 06.04.2013) passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh in L.R. Case No. 1/10 to 24/10 whereby the learned court has awarded less compensation. 2. The appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The other first appeals arise from the same judgement all relating to L.A. Case No. 22 of 2004-05 for the same village, namely, Kodi, P.S. Patratu, District: Ramgarh, all land acquired by the same notification for construction of railway line. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that identical issues are involved in all these cases and accordingly arguments have been advanced from the record of F.A No. 82 of 2017 in which additional evidence has also been filed through I.A. No. 6083 of 2022. He submits that the additional evidence is to be considered for the entire batch of matters involved in this case. He has also referred to the order dated 03.04.2025 and has submitted that I.A. No. 6083 of 2022 seeking to adduce additional evidence by the appellants and the counter affidavit both filed in F.A No. 82 of 2017 has to be considered for the entire batch of cases listed today. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the submissions that I.A. No. 6083 of 2022 and the counter affidavit, both filed in F.A No. 82 of 2017 have to be considered for the entire batch of cases. Further the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 03.04.2025 are quoted as under:- “1. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the land acquisition in the present case is vide notification dated 03.04.2003 published on 02.07.2003 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and all these cases arise out of L.A. Case No. 22 of 2004- 05. He submits that these cases relate to village Kori/Kodi of Patratu Anchal and all land has been acquired for the purpose of railways. 2. They have also submitted that the only dispute involved in these batch of cases is with regard to the rate compensation for the acquired land. So far as construction etc. is concerned, there is no dispute. 3. 2. They have also submitted that the only dispute involved in these batch of cases is with regard to the rate compensation for the acquired land. So far as construction etc. is concerned, there is no dispute. 3. It has been submitted that the lead case in this batch would be F.A. No. 82 of 2017 in which additional evidence and counter affidavit to the additional evidence has been filed which may be taken for the purpose of all the matters. 4. The parties have no objection to the additional evidence and the counter-affidavit to the additional evidence being taken up for consideration of the entire batch. 5. Arguments on the main appeal has commenced but has remained inconclusive.” 4. Thus, there is no dispute that I.A. No. 6083 of 2022 and the counter affidavit, both filed in F.A No. 82 of 2017 have to be considered for the entire batch of cases. Undisputed facts. 5. It is not in dispute that all these cases arise on account of acquisition of large portion of land measuring 42.27 acres of village Kodi, Anchal and P.S. Patratu, P.O Barkakana Dist. Ramgarh acquired by the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh for Railways and for construction of new railway line from Koderma to Ranchi via Barkakana, vide Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing Notification No. 368/Rev dated 03.04.2003 published in the Gazette on 02.07.2003. He has submitted that all these cases arise out of the same Land Acquisition Case. Arguments of the appellants. 6. The learned senior counsel submits that the land losers being aggrieved by the fixation of compensation by the Collector filed applications under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which were referred to the learned District Judge-cum-Special Land Acquisition Judge, and different L.R. Cases were instituted at Hazaribagh for determination of fair and correct market value of the acquired land. The cases were transferred to Land Acquisition Judge, Ramgarh due to creation of new District. The cases were transferred to Land Acquisition Judge, Ramgarh due to creation of new District. After contest, the learned judge vide the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2013 and the decree which was sealed and singed on 06.04.2013, was pleased to fix compensation-for all types of Dhan-I land @ Rs.1319/- per decimal with 10 per cent appreciation for 20 months;for all types of Tand-I land @ Rs.1,100/- per decimal with solatium and other benefits and other admissible reliefs under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and accordingly awards were prepared in different L.R. Cases and the corresponding First Appeals which are listed and being disposed of today are as under:- S. No. First Appeal No. L.R. Case No. and the Awarded amount L.A. Case No. Name of Village Date of Judgment & Award by L.A. Judge, Hazaribag (now Ramgarh) Total Compensation Amount allowed by L.A. Judge, Hazaribag (in Rupees) 1. FA 82/2017 11/2010 Rs.8497/- 22/2004- 05 Kodi 23.03.2013 06.04.2013 74,427 2. FA 84/2017 08/2010 Rs.1,15,693/- -do- -do- -do- 3,40,818 3. FA 85/2017 06/2010 Rs.1,798/- -do- -do- -do- 31,664 4. FA 86/2017 05/2010 Rs.55,601/- -do- -do- -do- 9,78,322 5. FA 87/2017 04/2010 Rs.2,38,223/- -do- -do- -do- 18,29,460 6. FA 88/2017 02/2010 Rs.9,650/- -do- -do- -do- 6,275 7. FA 93/2017 23/2010 Rs.5,758/- -do- -do- -do- 1,01,315 8. FA 94/2017 16/2010 Rs.64,057/- -do- -do- -do- 11,27,131 9. FA 96/2017 18/2010 Rs.23,571/- -do- -do- -do- 4,14,760 10. FA 97/2017 03/2010 Rs.1,16,040/- -do- -do- -do- 2,84,946 11. FA 99/2017 20/2010 Rs.1,798/- -do- -do- -do- 31,664 12. FA 100/2017 17/2010 Rs.6,119/- -do- -do- -do- 1,07,645 13. FA 101/2017 24/2010 Rs.21,953/- -do- -do- -do- 3,86,626 7. Although, a number of cases were disposed of by the common judgment, but total 13 cases are before this Court for consideration. 8. The claimants had claimed compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal, but the learned court had fixed compensation as above for all type of land categorizing them as two categories namely, Dhan-I and Tand-I. The learned counsel has submitted that all the appellants are only aggrieved by the rate of compensation with respect to the land and they have no further grievance in connection with any construction over the land involved in this case, area etc. 9. In the memo of appeals filed before this Court, the appeals have been valued by taking the compensation @ Rs.6,000/- per decimal and consequently the court fees have also been paid accordingly. 10. 9. In the memo of appeals filed before this Court, the appeals have been valued by taking the compensation @ Rs.6,000/- per decimal and consequently the court fees have also been paid accordingly. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned court has not properly considered the evidences on record inasmuch as there was sufficient oral evidence placed on record that there was development in the acquired area and it was near the national highway and was having limestone mining and heavy vehicles plying in the area for transportation of limestone and the area was also near the collieries and railway stations. The learned counsel has further submitted that number of villages were acquired at one row and Village-Daridag which is having a common boundary with the village involved in the present case is on the eastern side and was acquired by Notification dated 03.04.2003 and the compensation was fixed @ Rs.6,000/- per decimal in L.R Case No.188 of 2012 dated 28.03.2015 (placed on record through additional evidence). He has further submitted that the witnesses had deposed before the learned court that the villages, all falling in Patratu Anchal, land were acquired for the purposes of the same railway project in the Villages Pochra, Bujurg Jamira, Teliyatu, Sindhwarkala, Chhotki Sindhwarkala, Masmohana, Kadru, Daridag, Durgi and others were acquired and it was specifically deposed that the land in all these areas are of the same value. 11. The learned counsel has submitted that he has placed additional evidences on record through interlocutory application wherein numerous judgments has been placed which includes the judgment regarding the Village Daridag for which the rate was fixed @ Rs.6,000/- per decimal, but regarding the Village Masmohana, the rate has been fixed @ Rs.7,000/- per decimal, which has been ultimately fixed by the judgment passed by this Court and at the northeast portion, there is one common corner, but so far as the Daridag is concerned, the common boundary is quite long. The learned counsel has submitted that the map which has been placed on record through additional evidence before this Court shows the fact that they are adjoining to each other and the same is also mentioned in the oral evidence of the witnesses. The learned counsel has further submitted that at least Rs.7,000/- per decimal be fixed which has been fixed for the Village-Masmohana. The learned counsel has further submitted that at least Rs.7,000/- per decimal be fixed which has been fixed for the Village-Masmohana. He has further submitted that merely because court fees have been paid by taking the value of land @ Rs.6,000/- per decimal, the same is not fatal to the claim made by the appellants during the course of hearing by filing additional evidence and if there is any differential court fee, the same can always be realized from the appellants. 12. The learned counsel has submitted that it is also the duty of the court to fix fair market value irrespective of what the poor tribal persons have ultimately claimed before the court. He has submitted that a parity is required to be maintained with respect to the contiguous acquisition of land of all adjoining villages which have land of similar nature. The learned counsel has placed the oral evidence of all the witnesses produced from the side of the claimants and has submitted that they have deposed that there are four railway stations and the maximum distance is with regard to Ramgarh railway station which is five kilometers away from the village. The learned counsel has also submitted that the witnesses have deposed that there are schools, hospitals, etc. and other activities in the village and mining activity is also going in the village and there is lot of movement of trucks in the village. The learned counsel has submitted that there was enough development in the village, but this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned court. 13. The learned counsel has in particular referred to Annexure-4 to the interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional evidence which is relating to the village Masmohana and has submitted that the learned court has taken into consideration that Masmohana village is surrounded by other villages and Exhibit 2 was the judgment passed in connection with village Teliyatu which was also acquired in the year 2003 and compensation was given @ Rs.7,000/- per decimal where ultimately the court fixed the compensation at the flat rate of Rs.7,000/- per decimal taking that as the guiding factor. The learned counsel has also referred to the Annexure-2 to the interlocutory application and has submitted that the same relates to village Daridag and in the said case also the compensation has been fixed at Rs.6,000/- per decimal and he has submitted that ultimately no appeal was filed in connection with the said village. He submits that in that case the court has considered that the value of the land could not be fixed on agricultural classification and a flat rate was required to be fixed. This was done by taking into consideration the awarded amount in other land acquisition cases and other judgments which are related to acquisition of land for the same purpose. 14. The learned counsel has submitted that it is immaterial as to what the claimants have claimed with respect to the rate of compensation, it is the duty of the Court to fix fair compensation. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 paragraph 6 and 7 to submit that it has been observed that as per pre-amendment there was a cap on maximum compensation which could be fixed by the Court which should not be beyond the claimed amount but the cap would no longer exists. 15. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717 Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir paragraph 12, 13 and 14 to submit that it has been held that when the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired land are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the landowners unless there are strong reasons. 16. He has further relied upon judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 747 paragraph 4 to submits that it is unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose of acquisition is the same and is identical and similar, though lying in different villages. 17. 16. He has further relied upon judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 747 paragraph 4 to submits that it is unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose of acquisition is the same and is identical and similar, though lying in different villages. 17. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 447 paragraph 15 and 16 to submit that the sketch map has been enclosed herewith to demonstrate that the land involved in the present case is adjoining to the land which are involved in the other villages where appropriate compensation has been fixed irrespective of the claim of the appellants as made before the learned Court. 18. The learned counsel has submitted that the same aforesaid principles apply in the present cases and this principle has been applied while fixing the compensation in other cases relating to adjoining villages including Villages Masmohana and Daridag. Arguments of the respondents. 19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer for enhancement of compensation and has submitted that the learned court has taken all the evidences into consideration and has classified the entire land under two categories Dhan-I and Tand-I and the learned court has further considered that the evidence did not show that the village was a developed village and consequently the compensation as fixed does not call for any interference. 20. The learned counsel has also submitted that the evidences show that although there were different railway stations in Patratu Anchal, but the distance of the railway station was between 2 to 5 kilometers. The learned counsel has submitted that under such circumstances, the method of calculation as reflecting in the impugned judgment i.e. Rs.1319/- per decimal for Dhan land and Rs.1100/- for Tand land with some increase @ 10% per annum for 20 months so far as Tand land are concerned has been rightly used to come to arrive at the fair market value of the land. However, it is not in dispute that the lands in the group of villages were acquired for the purposes of aforesaid railway project and they all fall in the Patratu Anchal. 21. However, it is not in dispute that the lands in the group of villages were acquired for the purposes of aforesaid railway project and they all fall in the Patratu Anchal. 21. The sole point for determination in the present case is as to whether the learned trial court is justified in fixing the fair market price of the land as mentioned above in paragraph 6 that is for all types of Dhan-I land @ Rs.1319/- per decimal with 10 per cent appreciation for 20 months; for all types of Tand-I land @ Rs.1,100/- per decimal and whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. Findings of this court. 22. As mentioned above, it is undisputed that large chunk of land including the land involved in these cases was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1854 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1854’) vide notification dated 03.04.2003 published on 02.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1854 which was followed by quantification of compensation by the concerned authorities and the land losers received compensation under protest on 10.01.2007. On the application of the appellants, the cases were referred to the Collector, Ramgarh under Section 18 of the Act of 1854. The details of land bearing in various plots have been given in the impugned judgment which is not in dispute and these batch of cases are from Village Kodi within Patratu Police Station under the then District of Hazaribagh and now falling under the District of Ramgarh which was acquired for construction of Railway line. The classification in connection with the land was also challenged and it was claimed that considering the location and the available facilities, uniform rate should be fixed. The records reveal that the claimants claimed compensation @Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and examined six witnesses P.W.-1 Dhana Bedia, P.W.-2 Dinesh Kumar Bedia, P.W.-3 Hiralal Munda, P.W.- 4 Sona Munda, P.W.-5 Rengtu Bedia and P.W.-6 Tulsi Bedia and produced the following exhibits: - Exhibit Lists: Ext.1 to 1/c : Certified copy of four sale deeds. Ext. 2 : C.C of the Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court in Appeal No. 84 to 121 of 1990. Ext. 2/a : C.C. of the award passed in L.R. Case No. 21 to 31 of 1990 dated 15.10.2004. Ext. 2/b : C.C. of the award passed in L.R. Case No. 56 to 70 of 1989 dated 05.12.89. Ext. Ext. 2 : C.C of the Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court in Appeal No. 84 to 121 of 1990. Ext. 2/a : C.C. of the award passed in L.R. Case No. 21 to 31 of 1990 dated 15.10.2004. Ext. 2/b : C.C. of the award passed in L.R. Case No. 56 to 70 of 1989 dated 05.12.89. Ext. 2/c : C.C. of the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court in First Appeal No. 151 to 165 of 1990 dated01.11.2002. Ext.2/d : C.C. of the award passed in L.R. Case No. 86 to1223 of 1989 dated 30.01.1990. 23. The opposite parties examined two witnesses, namely, Satish Kumar Sinha as opposite party witness No. 1 and Kumar Umesh Chandra as opposite party witness No. 2. There are three documents produced by the side of the State government which are as under:- Exhibit A : The order passed by Land Acquisition Officer. Exhibit B : Assessment Report (Containing 20 pages) Exhibit C : Rate Report. 24. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to any other aspect of the matter except the rate of compensation, so far as the acquired land in the concerned villages are involved. 25. This Court finds that a few sale deeds were produced and exhibited by the claimants before the learned trial court for consideration but the learned trial court after due application of mind was of the view that the sale deeds either did not fall in the same village or were not comparable with the acquired land. This Court has gone through the exhibits produced by the claimants before the learned trial court and is of the considered view that the learned trial court has given sound reasons for not considering the one or the other sale deeds as exhibited by the claimants. 26. This Court also finds that the learned trial court ultimately referred to the assessment done by the Collector and rejected the classification of the Khet/Dhan land under Dhan-I, II and III and also rejected the classification of the Tand land under Tand-I, II and III and awarded compensation under two broad categories i.e. Dhan-I and Tand-I but at the same time accepted the rate of Dhan-I and Tand-I as taken by the collector. This Court has also gone through the assessment made by the Collector exhibited as exhibit-A which reveals that only one sale deed of Khet category of the year 2001 was taken into consideration and 3 sale deeds of 2000, 1 sale deed of 2001, 2 sale deeds of 2002 and 2 sale deeds of 2003 [24.01.2003 and 11.03.2003 - all prior to issuance of the notification under Section 4 in this case] have been considered and average rate of Tand land has been calculated. However, the Collector treated the sale deed under Khet category of the year 2001 as coming under Dhan-I category without any reason/basis. Similarly, the Collector took the average rate of Tand category of sale deeds and assumed them to be under Tand-I category again without any basis/reason. Since no sub-category was mentioned with respect to the sale deeds under consideration by the collector, the same could not have been taken to be falling under Tand-1 or Dhan-1 category and the rate for lower category under Tand or Dhan could not have been calculated on such basis. If the Khet category of sale deed was treated as Dhan-III category instead of Dhan-I category then the value of Dhan-I category would have been much more. Similarly, if the average of Tand category of sale deed were treated as Tand-III category then the value of Tand-I category would have been much more. 27. This Court finds that the learned trial court has already rejected the classification of land made by the Collector but has picked up two categories as Dhan-I category and Tand-I category for classification and has re-classified the entire land without realizing that the rate for Dhan-I category and rate for Tand-I category itself had no basis as explained above. 28. This Court is of the considered view that not only the classification made by the Collector was not in accordance with law as rightly held by the learned trial court but even the broad classification under Dhan-I and Tand-I category has been done by the learned trial court was also not in accordance with law as the same had no basis at all. The learned trial court ought to have not only rejected the classification but also the rate as projected. 29. This takes us to the additional evidence and other materials which has been placed on record. The learned trial court ought to have not only rejected the classification but also the rate as projected. 29. This takes us to the additional evidence and other materials which has been placed on record. In view of the fact that neither the sale deeds which were produced by the claimants were reliable as rightly held by the learned trial court nor the rate and the classification as made by the Collector was reliable nor the two broad classifications into Dhan-I & Tand-I and the rate mentioned therein is in accordance with law. 30. The witnesses have deposed before the learned court that the land was acquired in different villages which are all adjoining to each other namely, Pochra, Huzuchanda, Teliyatu, Sindhwar Kala, Chhotki Sindhwara, Masmohana, Kadru, Daridag, Lugadi and have deposed that the nature of land of all the villages is the same and have deposed that the land were of mixed category. It is further not in dispute as has also been recorded by the learned trial court and is also evident from the perusal of the additional evidences placed on record that land in other adjoining villages have been acquired for the purposes of the same project of the railways and for some of the villages the date of notification under section 4 is the same as that of village Kodi involved in this case and one such village is Daridag which is adjoining village of Kodi having long common boundary as is apparent from the Map brought on record as Annexure-1 through additional evidence and this aspect of the matter is not in dispute even during the course of arguments. This Court finds that it has come into evidence that the nature of land so acquired were similar though falling in different villages. However, the location and development in each village has been taken into consideration while awarding the compensation at average rate. This Court finds that amongst all the additional evidence which have been placed on record i.e. Annexure 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 may be considered as the date of notification under each one of them is of the year 2003 ranging between 03.04.2003 to 25.09.2003 and the rest of them have different dates of notification i.e. in the year 2004-2005 as has been projected in the tabular chart given in later part of this judgment. 31. 31. This Court finds that the villages Kadru, Masmohna, Teliyatu and Bujurg Jamira are not the adjoining village of the village Kodi involved in this case. Village-Masmohna has only a corner common with village Kodi. The most comparable village is Daridag with whom the village Kodi has long boundary and the land of both the villages are contiguous as is apparent from the map. The map reveals that Village Kodi is almost rectangular and has a full side boundary with village Daridag on the longer side of the rectangle. 32. So far as distance of the acquired land in village Kodi and existence of mining activity in the village involved in this batch of cases are concerned, P.W.1 has stated that there is pucca road (National Highway) which connects Ramgarh to Ranchi via Patratu which is a very busy road and his village is connected to the said road by pucca road. He has also stated that there is limestone mine in his village and scores of trucks ply in the area for transportation purpose. During his cross-examination also he has reiterated about mining and transportation of limestone from his village and he has stated that acquired land is not on Ramgarh–Patratu Road. However, it remained uncontroverted that there is limestone mining and transportation from his village which is connected by a pucca road to the national highway which connects Ramgarh to Ranchi via Patratu and numerous trucks ply in the locality. 33. P.W. 3 has also stated in his evidence that there is limestone mining in his village and factories of limestone and for this purpose numerous truck ply in the locality which remained uncontroverted during cross-examination and the cross-examination was on existence/distance from collieries. P.W. 4 has also stated that there is mining, factories and supply of limestone from his village but in cross-examination he has stated that limestone mine is in other village. 34. P.W.5 is a resident of village Kodi and has supported the case seeking enhancement of compensation. In his cross-examination, he has disclosed the name of lessee of limestone mining in his village and has stated that the government road is 3 km away and has also stated that his village is near Patratu–Ranchi Road. Other P.Ws have not stated anything about limestone mining activity in the village and its distance from the national highway connecting Ramgarh to Ranchi via Patratu. 35. Other P.Ws have not stated anything about limestone mining activity in the village and its distance from the national highway connecting Ramgarh to Ranchi via Patratu. 35. Opposite Party No. 2 (For Railways) in his examination in chief has not stated anything about distance from road or existence of limestone mine/colliery in the village. During his cross examination, he has stated that metal road is 7 to 8 hundred meters away from the acquired land and there is no pucca road nearby. 36. The opposite party No. 1 for the State is the Circle Inspector and has exhibited the aforesaid exhibits A, B and C. During his cross examination, he has stated that he is posted there for about 4 years and he uses National Highway No. 1 to go to the village Kodi and there are railways in the area from before and the area also has colliery and factory. He has stated that if sale deed of the same village is not available then rate of land acquisition of other villages can be considered. He is not aware as to how much land is dhan and how much is tand land and different rate (more/less) have been awarded with respect to land acquired in adjoining villages falling before or after the village Kodi. 37. On the conjoint reading of evidence of the witnesses on the point of location of the acquired land it is clear that the lands are nearby the National Highway and even the opposite party No. 2 (For Railways) has deposed that the metal road is just 7 to 8 hundred meters away from the acquired land. Further, there is evidence on record that there is activity of limestone mining in the area and there is movement of large number of trucks for transportation of limestone. 38. This Court also finds that the learned trial court while discussing the evidence of opposite parties has incorrectly mentioned that it was stated that pucca road is 7 to 8 kms away from the acquired land. In fact, opposite party No. 2 for railways stated that metallic road is just 7 to 8 hundred meters from the acquired land. This Court also finds that the learned trial court has wrongly observed that as per P.W.-1 the acquired land is 3 to 4 kms away from Ramgarh-Patratu Road meaning thereby that the village is not on Ramgarh-Patratu Road. This Court also finds that the learned trial court has wrongly observed that as per P.W.-1 the acquired land is 3 to 4 kms away from Ramgarh-Patratu Road meaning thereby that the village is not on Ramgarh-Patratu Road. In fact, P.W.-1 has nowhere stated the distance of Ramgarh-Patratu Road (National Highway) from the concerned village of the acquired land. He has stated that there is pucca road in the village which joins to the busiest road. During cross examination he has stated that distance from Ramgarh-Barkakana road to his village is 4 to 5 kms away and in paragraph 25 he has stated that Ramgarh Cantonment Area is 8 kms away, Barkakana is 3 to 4 kms away and the acquired land is 3 to 4 kms inside Barkakana. He has simply stated that acquired land is not on Ramgarh-Patratu Road but has not mentioned about the distance of his village from Ramgarh-Patratu Road. The distance has been rather mentioned by opposite party No. 2 of railways that the acquired land is 7 to 8 hundred meters from metallic road. 39. This court also finds that so far as the location of railway stations and collieries are concerned, different witnesses have given different distance ranging between 2 to 7 kilometers but there is no colliery or railway station in village Kodi. 40. This Court further finds that the witnesses produced from the side of the claimants have mentioned that there is mining activity of limestone in the village and there is movement of hundreds of trucks in the area and the area is otherwise quite busy. They have stated that as many as four railway stations are within the vicinity of 2 to 5 kilometers and there are schools, health centers, etc. in the village and they have claimed that the village is a developed village. These witnesses have been cross-examined and during cross-examination, the distance of the railway stations has been recorded, but the fact that there is mining activity in the village is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there are certain schools and health centers in the village and there is lot of movement of trucks in the village. 41. It is also not in dispute that there are certain schools and health centers in the village and there is lot of movement of trucks in the village. 41. The records reveal that so far as Annexure-4 is concerned, the same was in relation to village Bujurg Jamira and the award was passed on 29.02.2016 wherein the court had recorded that the valuation of the land should be fixed not according to agricultural classification considering the fact that there was effective commercial, social and communication development in and around the vicinity of the acquired land in the District of Ramgarh. The land so acquired which was subject matter of consideration in Annexure-4 was also regarding acquisition for railways and compensation was fixed @ Rs.8,000/- per decimal. 42. However, the appellants have placed on record other undisputed judgements relating to adjoining villages along with the undisputed Map by way of additional evidence and some of such judgements have been passed after passing of the impugned judgement and award. In order to arrive at fair compensation, the additional evidence brought through I.A. No. 6083 of 2022 is required to be considered. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6083 of 2022 is allowed. 43. Through the additional evidence, one map and 8 judgements of different villages have been brought on record whose details are as follows: - Annexure-1 MAP of Patratu Circle The MAP shows that villages Pochra, Huzuchanda, Teliyatu, Sindhwar Kala, Chhotki Sindhwara, Masmohana, Kadru, Daridag, Lugadi all fall in Patratu Anchal and village Daridag is the closest; Masmohana has one common corner and rest are far away as other villages fall in between. Annexure-2 Date of notification under section 4 on 03.04.2003 Awards dated 28th March 2016 for Village Daridag granting flat rate for all nature of land @ Rs. 6,000/- per decimal Annexure-3 Date of notification under section 4 on 03.04.2003 Awards dated 12th December, 2017 for village Kadru granting flat rate for all nature of land @ Rs.3,000/- per decimal. (The award dated 12th December, 2017 has been modified by the Jharkhand High Court on 25th March, 2025 in F.A. No. 176 of 2018 alongwith other F.A. cases and granting @Rs.7,000/- per decimal for the Village-Kadru) Annexure-4 Date of notification under section 4 on 03.04.2003 Awards dated 20th March 2019 for Village Masmohna granting flat rate for all nature of land Rs. 7,000/- per decimal Annexure-5 Date of notification under section 4 on 17.09.2003 Awards dated 31st March 2016 for Village Teliyatu granting flat rate for all nature of land Rs. 7,000/- per decimals Annexure-6 Date of notification under section 4 on 17.12.2004 Awards dated 28th February 2018 for Village-Sindwar Kala granting flat rate for all nature of land @ Rs. 11,000/- per decimals Annexure-7 Date of notification under section 4 on 25.09.2003 Awards granting flat rate for all nature of land @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimals for the lands acquired in Village Bujurg Jamira Annexure-8 and 9 Date of notification under section 4 on 18.09.2005 Award granting flat rate for all nature of land @ Rs. 8,800/- per decimals for the Lands acquired in Village-Pochra on 26.06.2013 was fixed by the learned trial court and modified vide Judgment dated 20th February, 2020 passed by Jharkhand High Court in F.A. No. 145 of 2013 alongwith other F.A. cases and awarded @ Rs.20,000/- Per decimal for the land acquired in Village- Pochra taking the circle rate into account 44. The aforesaid is over and above the fact that through additional evidences, the appellants have placed on record the compensation which has been ultimately fixed for the immediately adjoining village namely, Daridag which is having a long boundary with that of the present village Kodi which has been placed as Annexure-2 in the interlocutory application of additional evidence and the said acquisition of Daridag was also for the same purpose and acquisition was also vide the same date of notification dated 03.04.2003. It is not in dispute that the acquisition was by the same authority, for same project and at the same time in the adjoining village of Daridag. In the said case of village Daridag the compensation has been fixed @Rs.6,000/- per decimal. 45. This Court is of the considered view that the various orders of compensation which have been placed on record, the most comparable one with that of the present village is that of Daridag. So far as the village Masmohana [Annexure-4] is concerned, the compensation has been fixed at Rs.7,000/- per decimal, but the location of Village Masmohana is better place as compared to that of Village Daridag and village Kodi only shares a corner with village Masmohana. So far as the village Masmohana [Annexure-4] is concerned, the compensation has been fixed at Rs.7,000/- per decimal, but the location of Village Masmohana is better place as compared to that of Village Daridag and village Kodi only shares a corner with village Masmohana. Arguments of the appellants that compensation be fixed by taking the same rate as that of village Masmohana is rejected and it is held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation @ flat rate of Rs.6,000/- per decimal for all categories of land as has been awarded for village Daridag vide judgment dated 28.03.2015 passed in L.R. Case No.188 of 2012 and analogous cases at Annexure-2 of I.A. No.6083 of 2022 cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. 46. The appellants shall be entitled for solatium and other benefits also as admissible under the Act. 47. There shall be no order as to cost. 48. Office to prepare decree immediately. 49. All interlocutory applications are closed. 50. Let a copy of this judgement and also the appellate decree in each case be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.