Central coalfields Limited vs Most Charki Devi And Ors

Ananda Sen, J

These batch of appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, arise out of a common judgment passed in L.R. Case No. 58 of 1993 and

analogous cases, arising out of L.A. Case No. 8 of 1986-87, by which the learned Sub-Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh, has

assessed and fixed the compensation @ Rs. 2889/- per decimal, at a flat rate for the entire land acquired.

48.70 acres of land in the village Sirka, PS-Mandu, District-Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh), was acquired for the purpose of the Central Coalfields

Limited. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 04.01.1989. A corrigendum thereafter was published on

16.01.1990. After completing all the formalities, award was prepared in favour of each of the land losers fixing the rate of compensation. The land

losers objected to the rates. Due to the objection, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was heard by the Sub-

Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition. The claimants claim that the entire lands are homestead land and are situated just besides the Pucca

road which runs from Ramgarh to Ranchi. The lands are situated between Argadda and Ramgarh market. There are several collieries such as Sirka,

Argadd, Giddi and Bhurkunda nearby the acquired land. They claim that the market is just beside the land so acquired. They claim that there are

several factories in the vicinity and there exists Cinema Hall, Hospital, Railway Station, Schools etc. The claimants claim that due to industrialization

the area has got commercial potentiality and the market value of the land is about 10,000/- per decimal. They claim higher compensation and submitted

that the rate of compensation, fixed by the Collector, is very low.

Opposite party no. 2, i.e. the Central Coalfields Limited on impleadment appeared, filed their written statement and contested the claim. They

submitted that the land is barren. In their written statement they claim that the distance of the land from Naisaray and Ramgarh is about 20-25

kilometers. Giddi colliery is also about 8 kilometer away from the acquired land. There is no market in the vicinity. They admitted that the colonies

have developed around the acquired land and those were developed by the Central Coalfields Limited for the welfare of the employees. They admit

existence of factories in nearby areas, but claimed that they are about 10-15 kilometers away. They deny the existence of Hospital, Cinema Hall,

School etc. around the acquired land. It is admitted that infrastructural development has taken place besides the acquired land and there is existence of

electricity, water supply etc., but they are for the residences of their employees and has been provided by the Central Coalfields Limited and these

facilities are not general as claimed by the claimants. Their claim is that the rate so fixed is correct and needs no interference or enhancement.

To substantiate the case of the claimants-respondents, both oral and documentary evidences were adduced. 8 witnesses were examined as PWs,

who are Govind Oraon (PW-1), Shiv Charan Kumhar (PW-2), Bishun Mahto (PW-3), Basudeo Kumhar (PW-4), Nitesh Kumar Prajapati (PW-5),

Kishore Kumhar (PW-6), Jaiprakash Kumhar (PW-7) and Mahesh Prajapati (PW-8).

Documents were also exhibited by the claimants. Which are as follows:-

“Ext.-1, is certified copy of the judgment dt. 04.02.1993, passed in L.R.Case No. 659/92, by Addl. Sub-Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, L.A.

Ext.-1/a, is the certified copy of the judgment passed in L.R. case No. 56/89 to 70/89 dt. 05.12.1989 by the Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh.

Ext.-1/b, is the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in F.A. No. 877 to 886/93(R), dt. 24.02.03 (arising out of L.A.

Case No. 659 to 668/92).

Ext.-1/c, is the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in analogous F.A. No. 150 to 181/92(R), in L.R. Case No. 567/91

to 598/91.

Ext.-1/d, is the certified copy of the judgment passed in L.R. Case Nos. 63, 63, 67 and 69 to 73/93 dt. 01.05.08 passed by this Court.

Ext.-2, is the certififed copy of the sale deed dt. 19.03.82 with respect to lands of Khata No. 353, Plot no. 39 having an area of 2 decimals of Mouza

Ramgarh, Thana no. 82.

Ext.-2/a, is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 14.03..85 with respect to the lands of Mouza Ramgarh appertaining to khata no. 353, plot no.

41 having an area of 2 decimals.

Ext.-2/b, is also the certified copy of the registered sale deed dt. 17.07.86 with respect to lands of Mouza Sirka appertaining to khata no. 18, plot no.

964 having an area of 7 decimals.

The appellant-opposite party has also adduced oral and documentary evidences. One witness was examined on their behalf, who is Suresh Paswan

(O.P.W-1). They also exhibited some documents, which are as follows:-

Ext.-A, is valuation khatiyan vide case no. 8/86-87.

Ext.-B, is the rate report and

Ext.-C, is the sale figure from the period 1986 to 1989.

The Land Acquisition Judge, after hearing the parties and after going through the records, has held that the Collector has wrongly taken the lowest

rate of the sale deed exhibited as the basis for calculating compensation. The Court held that the highest rate should have been the basis for

calculating the compensation and considering the highest rate, he assessed the rate at Rs. 2,22,224/- per acre. Be it noted here that the lands, which

were acquired are of the same classification, i.e. Tand I. Since the sale deeds were three years prior to the notification of the acquisition, considering

the proximate increase in the price index for three years, @ 10% per year, which comes to 30%, finally assessed the valuation at Rs. 2,88,891.20

paise per acres and concluded that the correct market price and the valuation of the acquired lands per decimal will be Rs. 2889/-. Thus, answered the

reference accordingly.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Central Coalfields Limited submitted that the Court below has wrongly concluded and

assessed the valuation. He submitted that in view of the fact that there is no evidence of market, hospital, schools etc. near the area, the finding of the

Court below is vitiated. He further submitted that admittedly a huge chunk of lands was acquired, and the valuation arrived at, while acquiring a huge

chunk of land, cannot be equated with the valuation, which was only for 8-10 decimals of land, which was sold. He further submitted that allowing

hike of 10% in the price per year by the Court is alien to the process of determination of fair market value. He further submits that there is consistent

evidence that the lands, which were acquired, are in the interior village which is 20-25 km away from Naisaray. He further submits that the Court

below failed to take into consideration the proposition of law that there should be other deduction while calculating fair market value as per the

judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He lastly submits that in Village Sirka, i.e. in the same village, lands were acquired just few

months prior to the issuance of this notification for the same purpose. The said notification was issued on 01.10.1988. The compensation fixed in

relation to that acquisition was challenged by the awardees and ultimately, in the batch cases being F.A. Nos. 877 to 886 of 1993, this Court held that

Rs. 1800/- per decimals is the correct market value of the land and thus dismissed the appeals. Relying on the said judgment dated 24.02.2003, learned

counsel for the appellant submits that in this case also the valuation should be Rs. 1800/- per decimals.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents submits that there is consistent evidence, both oral and documentary in support

of their claim. He submits that the witnesses of the Central Coalfields Limited have admitted that the lands are developed and there are several

colonies in the same area, which has been established for residential purpose. He further submits that admittedly, there are collieries in the vicinity. He

further submits that the total area of acquisition is only 48 acres, thus, it cannot be said that the area is so huge which can diminish the market price, if

the same is acquired in one process. He further submits that the sale deed, which has been annexed, supports the case of the claimants-respondents

and the Court below has committed no illegality.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. The acquisition is of the year 1989-90. 48 acres of lands were

acquired. Admittedly, the lands are of same quality and classification. The claimants before the Court below argued that the compensation assessed

was much less and they are entitled to get the compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per decimal. The Land Acquisition Judge assessed the rate @ Rs. 2889/-

per decimal.

The claimants led evidences in support of their claim. 8 witnesses were examined on their behalf. PW-1 deposed that the lands were suitable for

construction of buildings and shops. He further deposed that the workshop of Central Coalfields Limited is very near to the acquired land. He further

deposed that there are roads and the facilities of electricity and water already exists and the road lies very near to the acquired land. He stated that

earlier also the lands were acquired in favour of the Central Coalfields Limited for which Rs. 1800/- per decimal was assessed. As per him, the lands,

which were earlier acquired is 200 feet away from the lands, which is the subject matter of the current acquisition.

PW-3 deposed that there are several factories nearby the acquired land. He also stated that the lands, which are the subject matter of the current

acquisition is contiguous to the lands, which were earlier acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited, for which compensation @ Rs. 1800/-per decimal

was paid. He further submitted that there are collieries nearby the acquired lands. PW-4 stated that the lands are near the Ranchi-Ramgarh road.

PW-6 stated that the area is well developed and the land is between Giddi and Ramgarh. He stated that there is government hospital nearby the

acquired land.

Opposite parties have examined one Suresh Paswan (O.P.W.1), a Kanungo in the District Land Acquisition Office, Hazaribagh and Shobha Sao,

a Chain Man. Suresh Paswan deposed that prior to the acquisition there were several factories running nearby and residential colonies, office, banks

and hospital were also there. This witness clearly admitted that the facilities of road, water and electricity are available. He also admits

industrialization of the area. Similarly, O.P.W-2 also admits that prior to the notification; land was developed and was having banks, schools and

hospitals. He admitted that there are amenities like road and electricity.

Thus, from the oral evidence, I find that the area was developed and there were amenities available. This is clear from the evidences led by both

the parties.

So far as what would be the correct valuation is concerned, the trial court has held that there are sufficient sale figures from the sale deeds, which

would suggest that the valuation would be Rs. 2, 22, 224/-per acres. The Court below has not accepted the valuation arrived at by the Collector. The

Court below held that the Collector has taken the lowest sale figure, which could not have been, rather as per the Court, it should be the highest sale

figure necessary for arriving at a conclusion about the market rate. After taking into consideration the highest sale figure, the Court assessed that the

sale figure comes to Rs. 2,22,224/- per acre, but observed that the sale figure is of the year 1986, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act is of the year 1989. The Court thus, takes into consideration the increase in the price of land and held that 10% increase per year is

natural and hiking the rate @ 10% per year, concluded that the rate per decimal should be Rs. 2889/-.

I find no error in the said calculation by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition. When there was a sale deed of the same area and the land

being already developed, the Court below has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the rate per decimal would be Rs. 2889/-.

Now, the question is whether any deduction had to be made from the same market price. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

“Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others- versus- K.S,. Gangadharappa and Another, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 16â4€​,

has held that the market value of large chunk of land cannot be determined by the rate of small plots. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

“Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs.- versus- State of Gujrat, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789†has held that deduction can also be made for

largeness of land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to a decision in the case of “Registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences-vs.-

Balanagouda†in the aforesaid judgment, wherein it has been held that even if no deduction is made on the ground of development cost, there has to

be deduction for largeness of land.

Thus, I find from the aforesaid judgments that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the sale price for a small piece of land

cannot be the appropriate sale price where a large chunk of land is acquired. No doubt, the same can only be a basis of calculation. In the instant

case, the area of land, which was sold and was taken as a basis is very small. The sale price of that small piece of land cannot be the same in respect

of acquisition of 48.70 acres of land. Thus, there must be some deduction from the aforesaid amount. The Court below has not deducted any amount.

Thus, committed irregularity.

Now, the question is what would be the rate of deduction. This court feels that if the acquisition is in respect of huge area, percentage of deduction

will be more and if comparatively less the percentage would also be proportionately less. In this case the acquisition is 48.70 acres, which cannot be

said to be a very huge area. Thus, the percentage of deduction, in view of this Court should not be more than 15%. Thus, I feel that 15 % deduction

should be made from the amount assessed. If we deduct 15 % from 2889/-, the value comes to Rs. 2455.65 per decimal and rounding off would

comes to Rs. 2456/-.

So far as deduction on account of development is concerned, I find that it is the case of both the parties that the area is very well developed.

When the area is very well developed having collieries, colonies, roads, schools, hospitals, water towers, electricity facility, this Court feels that no

deduction should be allowed on account of development.

Thus, In view of the aforesaid findings, I find that the current valuation of the land, so acquired, should be Rs. 2456/- per decimal. Thus, the

judgment of the Sub-Judge-II-cum- special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh is thus modified to the extent that the market value of the land would

be fixed at Rs. 2456/- per decimal. Accordingly, a fresh award should be prepared.

All these appeals thus, stand partly allowed.