West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO) vs Kalim Ansari And Ors

These appeals have been filed by the appellant West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO), now Tata Steel Limited, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the judgment and award dated 18. 12.2006 (award signed on 08.01.2007) passed by the Sub Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh in Land Reference Case Nos. 145 of 1992, 146 of 1992, 144 of 1992, 141 of 1992, 137 of 1992, 142 of 1992, 139 of 1992, 136 of 1992, 134 of 1992, 140 of 1992, 138 of 1992, 143 of 1992, 148 of 1992, 132 of 1992, 147 of 1992 and 135 of 1992, arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.46 of 1980-81 / 21 of 1988-89.

The appellant happens to be the Company for whose benefit the land was acquired. The respondents are the land loosers. All the lands were acquired by the same notification of the same village and arises out of common land acquisition case being L.A. Case No.46 of 1980-81 / 21 of 1988-89 and thus, were heard together by the learned Sub Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh and a common judgment was passed.

The appellants and the respondents argued the appeals by taking common grounds and all these cases were heard analogously and common judgment is being passed in all these cases.

The lands of village Pundi, P.S. Mandu, having total area of 22. 32 acres were acquired by the Government for the benefit of the appellant herein. Notification No. BLA HAZ-62/85-2911 (RA) dated 30. 09.1986 was issued, which was published on 01.01.1987 in the gazette. The lands acquired were of seven different categories and rate of each category of lands were fixed by the Collector. Dhan I lands and Tanr I lands were fixed at Rs.300/- per decimal. Dhan II was determined at 107.5 per decimal. Dhan III, Tanr II, Tanr III and Parti were determined at 150 per decimal, 75 per decimal, 10.75 per decimal and 9.38 per decimal respectively. The land loosers objected the rate of compensation, resulting in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The land loosers claimed that the actual rate should not be less than Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per decimal. They submitted that the area is well developed and there are signs of development like schools, colleges, market complexes, etc. etc. It is their case that the lands are adjacent to the highway and thus, can fetch much higher value. They claimed that village Pundi and Kujju are adjacent and the nature of lands of village Pundi is similar to that of the lands of village Kujju. Thus, the rate, which is prevalent in Kujju, should be fixed as the sale value for the purpose of compensation.

On behalf of the claimants/land loosers, four witnesses were examined. They also exhibited four registered sale deeds, which were marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 1/D in support of their claim. On behalf of the Government, one witness was examined. The Government also exhibited some documents like rate chart, valuation khatian, consolidated sale figures of village Kujju and some registered sale deeds. The Land Acquisition Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence, assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1200/- per decimal at flat rate in respect of the lands so acquired and directed to prepare award accordingly.

Challenging the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the basis of assessing the market value at Rs.1200/- is absolutely bad. He submits that the Land Acquisition Judge has held that the distance between Kujju and village Pundi is 5-6 kms. and thus, the sale deed and sale value of Kujju cannot be the basis of fixing the rate of compensation of the lands of village Pundi, which has been acquired. He submits that the evidence clearly suggests that Village Pundi is not developed like village Kujju. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by virtue of several decisions, has held that when a large tract of land is acquired, there has to be deduction on the sale value, but, this deduction has not been given effect to by the Land Acquisition Judge, which is an illegality. He submits that there should also be deduction on account of development charges and the Court below has also not deducted development charges, which is also an illegality. He submits that there were evidence on record about the sale value of the same village, but, the Court below, without assigning any reasons, discarded the same and rather arbitrarily fixed a figure of Rs.1200/- without any basis. Though, initially an objection was taken about fixing flat rate of compensation in respect of categories of lands in question, but, during course of argument, it was accepted that by virtue of several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no bar in fixing flat rate of compensation. Lastly, it is argued that the judgment of the Land Acquisition Court is bad and he should have considered the rate, which is prevalent in this village.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-land loosers submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the purpose of acquisition, there cannot be any deduction from the said value. He submits that the land was acquired for the purpose of mining and excavation and not for developing and establishing any township and, thus, in view of the aforesaid admitted position, there cannot be deduction from the sale price as development charges. He submits that it cannot be said that huge tract of land is being acquired to attract further deduction. He submits that only 22.32 acres are being acquired, which cannot be said to be a huge tract of land. He submits that Pundi and Kujju are adjacent villages and it has come in evidence that the nature of lands are same in these two villages, thus, the Land Acquisition Judge has not committed any wrong while fixing compensation basing upon the rate prevalent in Kujju. He submits that evidence clearly suggests that the land is adjacent to the highway and the area is developed. He submits that the rate, which has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is correct and needs no interference.

Now, in this case, the basic question, which will fall for consideration is whether the Court below has correctly assessed the rate of compensation and whether there is any logical basis to reach at the said conclusion.

A.W.1 is Dukhi Lal Mahto, who stated that lands were acquired for the benefit of Tata Company. Compensation was paid at a very lesser rate. Mandu, Kujju, Murpa, Ramgarh, Pundi are adjacent areas and there are different collieries. He stated that there is metal road on the western side, which is a highway connecting Patna Ranchi. He stated that there are School, Colleges, Cinema and Motor Stations in the nearby area. The rate of land is Rs.5,000/- per decimal.

A.W.2 is Ghana Mahto, who also stated that the area is developed and Main Road between Hazaribagh and Ramgarh is nearly 200 meters away from the acquired lands. He stated that very meager amount has been assessed as compensation though the rate is much higher.

A.W.3 is Bhubaneshwar Mahto, who stated that Pundi and Kuju are situated half kilometer away from each other and the lands which have been acquired, falls within the developed area. Similar is the statement of A.W.4.

Exhibit 1 to 1/D have been exhibited on behalf of the claimants. These are the certified copies of the sale deeds. Admittedly, these sale deeds are of village Kujju. On behalf of the opposite parties, one witness has been examined, namely, Wasim Murtazza, who stated that the lands acquired is for the purpose of West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO and the land was acquired after completing all the formalities. He stated that the rate fixed by the Collector is the correct rate. He stated that there is no School, Hospital or Market near the acquired area nor the area is densely populated. He stated that it is not correct to stated that Ranchi Patna Road is near the acquired land, rather it is 15 kilometer away.

On behalf of the respondents, certified copy of the rate report was exhibited as Exhibit 'A', valuation khatian as Exhibit 'B', consolidated sale figure as Exhibit 'C' and five sale deeds were exhibited as Exhibit 'D' to 'D/4'. While going through the evidence of the parties, I find that the claimant-witnesses have stated that the area is developed and the highway is very close to the lands, which has been acquired. As per their statement, there are School, Colleges nearby the area. This entire statement is denied by the witnesses, who have appeared on behalf of the defendants.

Now in view of the aforesaid circumstances, this has to be seen that how the correct rate is to be assessed.

The Land Acquisition Judge, while considering Exhibit 1 series and the Exhibit D series, i.e., sale deeds, has held that none of the vendors or vendee of the sale deeds have been examined. He relied upon the sale figure of village Kujju while considering the same. In paragraphs 18 and 19, the Court, relying upon Exhibit 'A' has concluded that distance between Pundi and Kujju is 5 - 6 kilometers. He has clearly given a finding in paragraph 19 that Kujju is 5 kilometer away from Pundi. Then the Court proceeds and concludes that since the land in village Kujju is sold at Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per decimal, so the value of lands in village Pundi would be less and concludes that Rs.1,200/- is the correct value. I find that this conclusion arrived at by the Land Acquisition Judge is based on no evidence. When the Land Acquisition Judge has accepted that the distance between these two places are 5 to 6 kilometers, then the sale price of village Kujju cannot be the basis of the sale price of village Pundi, more so when there was other cogent relevant evidence available before the Court below.

Exhibit 'D' series is the sale deed of Village Pundi itself, i.e., the village where acquisition had taken place. There are five sale deeds and the sale rate varied from Rs.500/- per decimal to Rs.1000/- per decimal, though in some deeds, the value is much less. Counsel for the appellant argued that when the sale deed of Village Pundi is available, the Land Acquisition Judge should have taken those sale deeds as the basis for calculating the compensation and by not doing so, he has committed grave illegality. I find much force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. While going through the sale deeds, i.e., Exhibit 'D' series, I find that the said sale deeds belong to the same village, though the sale deeds are of a period just subsequent to notification, but, there is nothing on record to remotely suggest that because of acquisition notification, there was sharp increase in the price of the lands. Thus, I find that when there was a concrete basis to assess the sale value, i.e., sale deeds of Pundi, the Court below could not have hypothetically fixed the rate of the land at Rs.1200/- per decimal holding that since the price of land of Kujju is much higher, the sale price of Pundi should be less and thus, sale price of Rs.1200/- is appropriate. This calculation is without any logic. Thus, in presence of Exhibit 'D' series, which are the sale deeds of Pundi, the same should have been considered for the purpose of fixing the valuation of the land and the Land Acquisition Judge committed grave illegality by ignoring the same.

Now the question is what would be market price. As per the four sale deeds of Exhibit 'D' series, the sale price varies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and Others versus State of Punjab and Others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432, has held that highest rate should be taken into account while fixing the market rate of the lands so acquired. From the Exhibits, I find that the highest rate is Rs.1,000/- per decimal as the land in Exhibit D/3 is sold at the said rate. Ten (10) decimals of land were sold at Rs.10,000/-, meaning thereby that Rs.1000/- is the rate. Thus, it can sufficiently be concluded that the correct market price of Village Pundi would be Rs.1,000/- per decimal, that should be the rate of compensation per decimal. This is, in fact, also one of the contention of the appellant.

So far as deduction on account of acquisition of large tract of land is concerned, I find that only 22.32 acres of lands have been acquired. This area cannot be said to be a very huge area to attract deduction. Further, admittedly, the lands were to be excavated for the purpose of mining and not for developing or urbanizing, so the concept of deducting an amount on account of development charges, as per this Court, will not be attracted in this case.

Thus, from over all discussion, I hold that the compensation has to be paid to the land loosers at the rate of Rs.1000/- per decimal along with all other benefits in place of Rs.1,200/- per decimal as fixed vide the impugned judgment and award dated 18.12.2006 (award signed on 8. 01.2007) passed by the Sub Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh in Land Reference Case Nos. 145 of 1992, 146 of 1992, 144 of 1992, 141 of 1992, 137 of 1992, 142 of 1992, 139 of 1992, 136 of 1992, 134 of 1992, 140 of 1992, 138 of 1992, 143 of 1992, 148 of 1992, 132 of 1992, 147 of 1992 and 135 of 1992, arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.46 of 1980-81 / 21 of 1988-89.

These appeals, thus, stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. Awards to be prepared accordingly.