Punia Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Ambuj Nath, J

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2017 (Decree signed on 21.03.2017) passed by Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathy, Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No. 55 of 2011, whereby and wherein, the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation for Pucca house built over the land appertaining to Khata No. 21 Plot No. 153 of Mouza Sonardih, District Dhanbad, was dismissed.

The case of the appellant is that the aforesaid land which was a fast track land along with dwelling houses were acquired by the Respondent No. 1-State of Jharkhand for the benefit of Respondent No. 2- M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Head Office at Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as ‘BCCL’). The state of Jharkhand issued notice to the appellant under section 9 of Land Acquisition Act for measurement and objection was raised after the award of Rs. 60,756/- was prepared and the appellant received the same under protest. According to the appellant, the aforesaid property is worth more than Rs. 2.00 lakh.

In order to prove its case, appellant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Appellant Punia Devi has been examined as A.W-1. Sushil Kumar (A.W-2) is a Chartered Accountant and Engineer who has proved the valuation report which is Ext.1. Photograph of the property under acquisition is Ext.1/A and the Registered Sale Deed is Ext.-2. Respondent No. 2-BCCL has examined Girija Kumar Banerjee as O.P.W-1.

On the basis of the evidence – oral and documentary – adduced by the parties, Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the L.A. Reference Case and held that the award of Rs. 60,756/- prepared for compensation against the land acquired for the use by the Respondent No. 2 was just and proper.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has examined Sushil Kumar as A.W-2 who is a Chartered Accountant and Engineer cum valuer and as per assessment of this witness, the net value after depreciation of the house was Rs. 1,76,172/-. It was submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad has not considered the evidence of the Valuer Sushil Kumar and rejected the claim of the appellant arbitrarily.

Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2-M/s B.C.C.L, submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Court has rightly rejected the report of Sushil Kumar as the report of Sushil Kumar was without any basis. It was further submitted that this witness has also failed to explain as to what was the basis of valuing the house standing on the land of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 1,76,172. On this ground, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

The main dispute between the parties is over the valuation of the house standing over the land appertaining to Khata No. 21 Plot No. 153 of Mouza Sonardih, District Dhanbad, which was not taken into account while preparing the award. The appellant has mainly relied upon the valuation report of Sushil Kumar (A.W-2) who has valued the property to the tune of Rs. 1,76,172/-.

Now, it has to be decided, whether the L.A Court has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant Punia Devi, if the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation with regard to the building standing on the land?

As discussed above, appellant has mainly relied upon the statement of Sushil Kumar (A.W-2) who is a Chartered Accountant and Engineer by profession and has submitted valuation report, stating that the land in question was valued at Rs. 1,76,172/- Sushil Kumar (A.W-2) in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had valued the building standing on the aforesaid land, as per the norms and rate prescribed by P.W.D. Thereafter, he prepared the valuation report. He has proved the valuation report which has been marked Ext.-1. He has also proved the photograph of the house which is Ext.-1/A.

He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has prepared the valuation report at the instance of the appellant. For preparing the valuation report, he took into consideration the fact that the house was built in the year 1990 and this fact was revealed by the appellant. He has not mentioned in his report as how many rooms were in the house. He has also admitted that at the time when valuation was done, neither of the opposite parties nor their representative were informed about it, nor they were present at that time.

It appears that this witness has not produced any measurement book, nor asked the Circle Officer of the concerned Area to submit rate chart. As per the said norms, only Public Works Department is authorized to make valuation. As the valuation process was carried out in the absence of the opposite parties, it cannot be read in evidence against the opposite parties.

Considering the fact that the valuation report adduced by the appellant (Ext.-1) cannot be read in evidence against the opposite parties, I do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Land Acquisition Judge, dismissing the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation over the land in question which was acquired for the benefit of the Respondent No. 2-BCCL. L.A. Court has rightly dismissed the Reference, stating that the appellant is not entitled to get compensation at the enhanced rate.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED

This appeal is dismissed. Judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Court, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No. 55 of 2011 stands affirmed. Parties shall bear their own cost (s).