Central Coalfields Limited And Ors vs Kurban Mian And Ors

This batch of appeals arise out of Land Reference Case No.3 of 2011 to 22 of 2011 and 24 of 2011 to 72 of 2011. All these land reference cases arose out of Land Acquisition Case No.6 of 2005-06.

Since the judgment in all these Land Reference Cases is common and the arguments in one case was adopted in all the cases by the counsel, this common judgment is being passed in all these appeals.

Lands having an area of 116.54 acres in Village Toppa, P.S. Mandu, Thana No.126 was acquired by the Government in favour of Central Coalfields Limited. A declaration was published in the Bihar Gazette on 01.08.2005 bearing Declaration No.589/Ra. Dated 14. 07.2005. Out of these cases mentioned above, Land Reference Case No.71 of 2011 and 72 of 2011 (Award No.135 and 136) are with respect to houses whereas other land reference cases relate to raiyati lands. Land loosers objected to the rate, which was assessed by the Collector, which led to reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh against the respective awards prepared by the Collector, where claimants claimed enhancement of compensation.

All the references arose out of the same notification in respect of Village Toppa, thus, all these reference cases were heard analogously by the Land Acquisition Court and a common judgment was passed.

The claimants claimed that the award and the valuation is not as per prevalent market rate of the lands. As per the claimants, the prevalent market rate of the lands is not less than Rs.20,000/- per decimal at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. They claim that all the classes of lands should have been fixed at a flat rate. They contended before the Land Acquisition Court that the future potential, prospect and the usefulness of the lands have not been considered while fixing the market values. They claimed that the lands being Class I land, which are fit for construction of houses, shops and which are situated nearby the Highway passing through the village, attracts a higher market value. It is the case of the claimants that all the urban facilities like electricity, water are available in the area. It is also their case that there are banks, markets, schools, hospitals in the vicinity of the acquired lands. The area is also surrounded by several coal mines and admittedly, for the purpose of coal mines, these lands were acquired. They claimed that in respect of acquisition of lands in Nai Sarai and Ramgarh, the Court has awarded Rs.7,250/- per decimal in Land Reference Case No.58 of 1989 to Land Reference Case No.70 of 1989 and in Nai Sarai, the amount of Rs.10,000/- per decimal was awarded. They submit that comparing the market price fixed in respect of those acquisitions, the land-loosers, who are governed by this notification, are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per decimal.

Opposite parties appeared before the Court below and filed their show cause. Their contention is that the amount claimed by the land-loosers is exaggerated and without any basis. They submit that the registered sale deeds of the vicinity suggest that the rate claimed by the land-loosers is much exaggerated. They deny the submission of the claimant that the area is well developed and a commercial area. Further, their case is that the sale deeds, which the claimants produced cannot be taken into consideration in view of the negligible area of land involved in those sale deeds and moreover, those sale deeds are not of the same village and relates to a period which is much after the acquisitions made. Opposite parties further argued that the land-loosers were ready to accept the amount, but, because of interference made by some leaders, they got misled and compromise could not be arrived at.

In support of their respective cases, both oral and documentary evidences were adduced by the parties. On behalf of the claimants, six witnesses were examined, who are A.W.1 Nawi Mian, A.W.2 Ishak Mian, A.W.3 Mahabir Kisku, A.W.4 Manu Ravidas, A.W.5 Aliyas Ansari and A.W.6 Md. Nasrul Ansari.

They produced number of documents, which were exhibited. The exhibited documents are :

Ext. 1 : C.C. of sale deed No.14315 dated 24.09.2013 for 3 decimals of land of Vill-Topa for Rs.14,000/-.

Ext. 1/a: C.C. of sale deed No.1657 dated 19.04.2008 for 1 decimal land of Vill. Topa for Rs.37,000/-.

Ext.1/b: C.C. of sale deed No.292 dated 24.01.2008 for 1 decimal land of Vill. Topa for Rs.25,000/-.

Ext. 1/c : C.C. of sale deed No.12272 dated 27.07.2004 for 10 ½ decimals of land of Vill. Topa for Rs.34,000/-.

Ext. 2: C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge II, Hazaribagh dated 22.04.2008 in L.R. Case No.95/93 to 99/93 with regard to acquisition of land in Village Kujju.

Ext.2/a: C.C. of judgment of High Court Ranchi dated 17.12.2003 in L.R. Appeals analogously decided against the judgment and awards passed in batch Land Reference Case Nos.21-54/85 by the Spl. Judge, Hazaribagh.

Ext.2/b: C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge II, Hazaribagh dated 30.01.2014 in L.R. Case No.219 to 225/09 with regard to acquisition of house in village Toppa.

Ext. 2/c: C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge II, Hazaribagh dated 28.02.2014 in L.R. Case No.211 to 216/09 with regard to acquisition of land in village Ara.

Ext. 2/d : C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge II, Hazaribagh dated 29.02.2012 in L.R. Case No.105 to 137/09 with regard to acquisition of house in village Dabhatu.

Ext.3: C.C. of valuation chart of different nature of lands as well as of houses as approved by the government in the year 2005.

Opposite Party No.1, who is Deputy Commissioner (State) had produced one witnesses, namely, Anil Kumar, who is the Circle Inspector-cum-Kanungo of Ramgargh. Appellant herein has also examined one witness, namely, Ramji Prasad, who is their Survey Officer of Toppa Project.

Opposite parties also produced several documents, which were exhibited: -

Ext. A : Attested copy of rate report/order sheet of L.A. Case No.06/2005-2006 of D.L.O., Ramgarh from 05.04.05 to 03.11.06 with proposal of sanction of the rate by the Deputy Commissioner with respect to village Toppa relating to Declaration No.589/Ra. dated 14.07.2005.

Ext. B : Attested copy of valuation Khatian in L.A. Case No.06/2005-2006.

Ext. C : C.C. of judgment of Sub Judge II, Hazaribagh dated 29.09.2010 in L.R. Case No.45/09 to 51/09 and L.R. Case No.53/09 to 79/09 with regard to acquisition of land in village Toppa.

After hearing the parties and after going through the records, the Court below held that the claimants' demand of Rs.20,000/-per decimal as compensation is unfair and unjust. The Court below found that all the basic amenities and the sign of developing features like Schools, Hospitals, Market place, electricity, and bank are there, which is apparent from the evidence led by both the parties. The Court below held that flat rate of compensation can be given irrespective of the classifications. The Court below, after taking into consideration the Exhibit 1 'C', has held that Rs.3,238/- per decimal is the just compensation, which can be granted to the land-loosers. It is also held that over and above the aforesaid compensation, the land-loosers are also entitled to get solatium, interest and other benefits as provided in the Act.

Challenging the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Central Coalfields Limited argues that the Court below has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which lays down the law that there should be deductions in the market rate of lands when large chunk of lands are acquired. He submitted that sale value of a small portion of land, though can be a guiding factor, but, cannot be the sole basis to conclude that the entire compensation should be at the said rate. He submits that out of the same notification and of the same village, lands were acquired and those land-loosers approached the Court of Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh and the judgment was passed in Land Reference Case No.45 of 2009 to 51 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 to 79 of 2009. The said judgment is in respect of the same village Toppa and was exhibited before the Court as Exhibit 'C', but the Court below, without assigning any reason, has disapproved the rate fixed. He submits that the Court below should have fixed the rate of the lands as it was fixed by the Sub Judge II, Hazaribagh in the aforesaid cases, which involves lands in respect of the same notification. He submits that Exhibit 1 'C' could not have been the basis for fixing the compensation as the said land is only 10 ½ decimal and one of many transactions. He submits that further there should have been deductions for development as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though initially the opposite parties had taken an objection that there cannot be compensation assessed at flat rate, but, during course of argument, the counsel admits that law is settled now and there can be flat rate of compensation irrespective of different classification of lands. He lastly submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and law, the judgment needs to be set aside.

In support of his contention, Mr. Amit Kumar Das relies upon a judgment reported in (2012) 12 SCC 595 [Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by LRS. & Others versus Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others], (2014) 16 SCC 274 [Indian Council of Medical Research versus T.N. Sanikop & Another], (2003) 10 SCC 529 [Bhim Singh & Others versus State of Haryana & Another] and (2009) 9 SCC 289 [Attar Singh & Another versus Union of India & Another].

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Court below has correctly assessed the compensation amount and the valuation. He submits that the rate of the land cannot be less than Rs.20,000/- per decimal. He submits that the classification of the land is Class I land and was fit for construction of shops and houses and virtually it is within the industrial area. He submits that the rate, which has been fixed, is on much lower side as much higher amount has been given in other cases where acquisition has taken place. In support of their contention, the respondents relied upon the judgment reported in (2016) 13 SCC 84 [Punjaji Gopalji and Others versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others] and (2015) 15 SCC 220 [Krishan Kumar versus Union of India and Another].

I have heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondents and have gone through the records.

This appeal has been filed by the Coal Company for whose benefit, the land was acquired. The learned Judge assessed the market value of the land at Rs.3,238/- per decimal. The said rate is a flat rate irrespective of the classification of lands.

Be it noted here that the respondents-land loosers have not challenged the findings and the rate which has been fixed, thus, they cannot claim compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per decimal, which they had claimed. In these appeals they have to defend the judgment passed by the Special Judge Land Acquisition-cum-Sr. Civil Judge II, Hazaribagh.

P.W.1 has stated that his land was acquired, but compensation was not paid as per the market rate of the land. He stated that beside the land, which has been acquired, there are schools, hospitals, water towers etc. Beside the road sides, there are shops and trees. Residential quarters of Topa Colliery is also near the acquired land and there are several other collieries also, namely, Kuju Colliery, Ara Colliery and Sarubera Colliery. He admits that in a similar nature of acquisition in relation to Land Reference Case No.45 of 2009 to 51 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 to 79 of 2009, the Court had fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.2800/- per decimal and the Central Coalfields Limited has not challenged the same. He stated that the price of the said area has increased a lot. In cross examination, he states that the lands in Toppa was even, but, later on Central Coalfields Limited dumped boulders and earth making it uneven. He states that water tank belongs to the Central Coalfields Limited. He admits that there is no government hospital in Topa, but, there are private hospitals. He admits that electricity facility has been provided by Central Coalfields Limited.

P.W.2 deposes in the same line as that of P.W.1, but, admits that he has been employed by Central Coalfields Limited in lieu of acquisition.

As all the other Plaintiff Witnesses have stated in similar line, I am not repeating the statements of what the other witnesses have said, but, on analyzing the statement of Plaintiff Witnesses, I find that all of them have stated that there are collieries near by the acquired land. There are some sort of market and township constructed by Central Coalfields Limited. From the tenor of their evidence, I find that they admit that development in the area was done by Central Coalfields Limited.

On behalf of the respondents, one Anil Kumar was examined as P.W.1, who exhibited the valuation khatian, order sheets of Land Acquisition Case No.6 of 2005-06. He stated that as per the valuation khatian, the compensation amount was fixed. In cross examination, he stated that he had no knowledge about the said acquisition and the acquisition has not taken place in his presence or through him.

Another witness was examined on behalf of Central Coalfields Limited, who was the Survey Officer of the Colliery. He admits that land and building was acquired for the benefit of the Company. He states that 116.54 acres of land was acquired for the purpose of dumping overburden. He stated that there was no facility of irrigation in the said village and there are no factories nearby. He stated that the houses, which were acquired, were very old and was of tiled roofs (khapra roof). He stated that the area was not well developed. He stated that the compensation fixed by the State was at the correct rate.

Some sale deeds were also exhibited by the claimants to prove as to what would be the correct valuation of the lands, which have been acquired. Out of sale deeds, Exhibit 1, 1A, 1B are of the year 2008, which cannot be taken as a basis for calculating the compensation as they were much after the acquisition. Exhibit 1 'C' is the sale deed dated 27th July 2004 where 10 ½ decimals of land has been sold at the rate of Rs.34,000/- which means that price per decimal is nearly Rs.3,400/-. Exhibit 2 is a judgment of Special Judge Land Acquisition-cum-Sr. Civil Judge II, Hazaribagh in Land Reference Case No.95 to 99 of 1993 wherein a flat rate of Rs.4,000/- per decimal was assessed in respect of acquisition of land in village Kuju. Exhibit 2 'B' is a judgment passed by the Sr. Civil Judge II-cum-Special Judge Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh in Land Reference Case No.219 of 2009 to 225 of 2009, wherein the rate for the houses were fixed at Rs.300/- to Rs.450/- per square feet. Exhibit 2 'C' is the judgment in Land Reference Case No.211 to 216 of 2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge II-cum-Special Judge Land Acquisition where the rate of land has been fixed at Rs.4800/- per decimal. Exhibit 2 'D' is the judgment passed in Land Reference Case No.105 of 2009 to 137 of 2009 wherein the average amount of compensation has been fixed at Rs.8,923/- per decimal. Exhibit 3 is the rate chart.

On behalf of the opposite parties also documents were exhibited. They are the order sheets in Land Reference Case No. 3 to 22 and 24 to 72 of 2011 and the valuation chart which shows the sale value of the lands, which were sold in that area. They have also exhibited the judgment passed in Land Reference Case No.45 of 2009 to 51 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 to 79 of 2009 as Exhibit 'C' wherein the compensation has been fixed at Rs.2403.67.

The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that Exhibit 'C' clearly fixed the rate of compensation as Rs.2403.67 per decimal at a flat rate. He submits that the said Exhibit 'C', i.e., the judgment passed in Land Reference Case No.45 to 51 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 to 79 of 2009 arises out of same notification, which is the subject matter of the current case as date of notification in both the cases is 14.07.2005. He submits that when one Court has already fixed the compensation amount, for the same acquisition, parity should have been maintained and fixing compensation amount at Rs.3238/- per decimal is unjustified. He submits that P.W.1 has accepted this fact in his evidence. He submits that the said rate is correct rate of land so acquired.

After analyzing the evidence, both documentary and oral, I find that the witnesses have stated that there were collieries near the acquired land. They also stated that there were colonies of Central Coalfields Limited. Existence of schools, water towers is also admitted. There are evidence to suggest that developmental activities had taken place in the nearby area, but, it is also admitted that the same was done by the Central Coalfields Limited. Further from Exhibit 'C', I find that it is the plea of the respondents that in the said judgment passed in Land Reference Case No.45 of 2009 to 51 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 to 79 of 2009, after considering all these aspects, the Land Acquisition Judge Court had fixed the sale value of land at Rs.2,403.67 at flat rate. It is the plea of the appellant that the acquisition notification of the said Land Reference Case No.45 of 2009 and analogous cases is same in respect of the lands which is involved in this case. This fact has also not been denied by the respondents-land loosers. I also find that P.W.1 has also admitted this fact. He said that in similar nature of acquisition, i.e., Reference Case No.45 of 2009 rate has been fixed at Rs.2,800/- per decimal, and Central Coalfields Limited had accepted the said rate and has not challenged the same. From this fact, the judgment of Land Reference Case No.45 of 2009 (Ext. 'C') is admitted. In Ext. 'C' admittedly the rate is fixed at Rs.2403.67 per decimal.

It is the strong argument of the appellant that it is most prudent to assess the compensation in respect of the land acquired at the rate where in respect of same notification one Court has already assessed the same. Argument of the counsel for the appellant is that compensation should be assessed at Rs.2,403.67 per decimal.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bhim Singh & Others versus State of Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 529 has held that earlier judgment in such proceeding can be the best method for fixing the compensation. In the case of Attar Singh and Another versus Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 9 SCC 289, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if acquisition is made out of the same notification, the parties cannot be treated differently. In the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others versus State of Haryana and Others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127, while dealing with similar type of situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the appellants are identically situated, there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them.

In this case, as held above, P.W.1 has accepted the fact that Exhibit 'C' is in respect of similar lands of similar acquisition, where the rate has been fixed at Rs.2403.67, which has been accepted by the Company. The Company also relies upon the said document and submits that the correct rate should have been the rate what has been fixed as per Exhibit 'C', i.e., Rs.2403.67, which, as per the Company, the Land Acquisition Judge has overlooked. Thus, I find both the parties rely upon the same document.

Further, I find that the Land Acquisition Judge has not considered the fact that the land, which has been acquired is 116.54 acres and when land is acquired in such a huge extent, the price of a very small area, i.e., 10 ½ decimal, though can be a guiding factor, but the said price cannot be applied for the entire 116.54 acres. There has to be a deduction from the price. The Land Acquisition Judge, in this case, has not deducted any amount after assessing the market value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charan Dass (Dead) by LRs. Versus Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 398 has held that considering the large area of the land, which is acquired, up to 30% of deduction can be made from the market value so fixed, which has been based on sale price of smaller area of land. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments has held that there has to be deduction towards development charges also.

Admittedly, this deduction, on the aforesaid two heads has not been made by the Land Acquisition Judge, while arriving at the compensation amount. If the deductions are made from the assessed valuation of Rs.3,238/- per decimal, the final valuation is bound to decrease. If a lump sum of 30% is deducted from the aforesaid two heads, the amount will come to Rs.2267/- per decimal approximately, which is more or less the same as fixed vide Exhibit 'C', i.e., Rs.2403.67 per decimal, which has been paid in similar acquisition out of same notification.

Thus, I find that the rate fixed by Exhibit 'C' is the correct valuation of the land, which has been acquired and the same is also relied upon by both the parties.

Thus, in view of what has been held above and view of the judgment of Bhim Singh (supra), I find that the correct value of the land so acquired should be fixed at Rs.2,403.67 per decimal.

So far as Land Reference Case Nos.68 and 69 of 2011 are concerned, which relate to acquisition of a portion of the house, by para 13 of the impugned judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge dismissed the prayer of the land loosers. This appeal is not by the land loosers, thus, so far as Land Reference Case Nos.68 and 69 of 2011 are concerned, the judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge is upheld.

In view of what has been held above, these appeals stand allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge vide the impugned judgment is modified to be Rs.2,403.67 per decimal to be payable by the appellant company in favour of the land loosers.