Case at a Glance
Land in Mouza Gandke, Ramgarh, was acquired in 2019 for widening the Lalki Ghati–Marang Marcha stretch of NH-23. The Land Acquisition Officer paid the circle rate of Rs 3,740 per decimal, and the reference court raised it to a flat Rs 11,000 “for the interest of justice” without any calculation. In 32 first appeals, the Jharkhand High Court held that the reference court’s judgment was perverse and had not followed Section 26 of the 2013 Act, and fixed compensation at Rs 99,300 per decimal on the basis of a 2017 sale deed from the adjoining village, with all statutory benefits.
The land of the appellants, totalling 130 decimals as per the appellants’ table, in Mouza Gandke, Police Station Ramgarh, was acquired for widening and strengthening the Lalki Ghati to Marang Marcha road on National Highway 23, under a Section 11 notification dated 1 July 2019 issued under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The District Land Acquisition Officer awarded a flat Rs 3,740 per decimal — the circle rate for agricultural land.
On reference, the Principal District Judge-cum-L.A.R.R.A., Hazaribag, by a common judgment dated 24 February 2025, rejected the claimants’ figure as “to much high in compare to the government assessment” and fixed Rs 11,000 per decimal “for the interest of justice”. The landowners, who had claimed Rs 1,50,000 per decimal relying on sale deeds from the neighbouring villages of Kankebar and Murramkala, filed 32 first appeals. The State argued that the land was ‘Tanr’ land in a CNT area, that no comparable sale deed from Gandke had been proved, that not every claimant had testified, and that compensation had been accepted without protest.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the reference court right to fix compensation at a flat Rs 11,000 per decimal without applying Section 26 of the 2013 Act, and what is the correct market value when no sale deed from the acquired village itself is available?
How the High Court Rebuilt the Market Value
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary first cleared the State’s preliminary objections. The plea that the claimants had taken compensation without protest was rejected because they had objected immediately on receiving the Section 37(2) notice. The argument for an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act also failed: two witnesses had deposed for all claimants and all the cases were tagged and tried together. On the merits, the Court held that “the impugned judgement passed by the learned court is perverse on account of incomplete appreciation of materials on record”, since the reference court had neither considered the sale deeds nor followed the method laid down in Section 26.
Applying Section 26 and its Explanations, the Court looked at the village maps (Exts. X and X/1) and found that Gandke shares a long common boundary with Kankebar but not with Murramkala, so “the sale deeds of village Murramkala cannot be taken into consideration”. It then confined itself to “the sale deeds pertaining to the period of 3 years i.e., from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019” preceding the notification. Only one exhibit qualified — Ext. 1/1, a Kankebar sale of 6.25 decimals on 14 July 2017 for Rs 6,20,625, i.e., Rs 99,300 per decimal. The Court noted that the acquired plots, fronting the national highway with quicker access to Ramgarh town, “have huge locational advantage” that the exemplar plot lacked, and that the State had filed no cross-appeal against the Rs 11,000 rate. It adopted Rs 99,300 per decimal as the flat rate.
What the Court Actually Held
- The reference court’s judgment was perverse for incomplete appreciation of evidence and for not following Section 26 of the 2013 Act.
- Where no sale deed of the acquired village exists, sale deeds of the nearest village sharing a common boundary may be used; deeds from a non-adjoining village (Murramkala) were excluded.
- Only sale deeds of the three years preceding the Section 11 notification (1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019) were considered; Ext. 1/1 at Rs 99,300 per decimal was the sole qualifying exemplar.
- Compensation was enhanced from Rs 11,000 to a flat Rs 99,300 per decimal, with statutory benefits under the 2013 Act “as granted in the impugned judgment and awards at the enhanced rate”; office to prepare decree.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that a reference court cannot pick a round figure ‘in the interest of justice’ — market value under the 2013 Act must be worked out through the Section 26 method.
- It gives landowners a clear route when their own village has no recorded sales: prove the map and the common boundary, and use the adjoining village’s deeds from the three-year window.
- It confirms that objecting on receiving the Section 37(2) notice is enough to defeat a ‘no protest’ plea against the reference.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landowners
- Exhibit the village map to prove which neighbouring village actually adjoins yours; adjacency decided the exemplar here.
- Produce sale deeds falling within the three years before the Section 11 notification — deeds outside that window were not counted.
- Record your objection as soon as the Section 37(2) notice arrives, so the reference cannot be thrown out on a ‘no protest’ plea.
For Counsel
- Attack an unreasoned ‘lump-sum’ reference award as perverse for non-application of Section 26 and non-consideration of exhibits.
- Where claims are tagged together, two common witnesses may suffice; an adverse inference under Section 114(g) is not automatic.
- Stress locational features such as highway frontage, and note whether the State has filed any cross-objection to the reference rate.
Key Takeaways
- Market value under the 2013 Act must follow Section 26; a round figure fixed ‘for the interest of justice’ was held perverse.
- Nearest-village sale deeds are usable when they share a common boundary, as shown by the village maps.
- The relevant sale deeds are those of the three years preceding the Section 11 notification.
- The Rs 99,300 rate from a single qualifying 2017 sale deed was applied as a flat rate to all 32 appeals, with statutory benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did the High Court arrive at Rs 99,300 per decimal?
It took the only sale deed that met the Section 26 tests — a 14 July 2017 sale of 6.25 decimals in the adjoining village of Kankebar for Rs 6,20,625 — and adopted its per-decimal rate as the flat compensation rate for the acquired land.
Why were the Murramkala sale deeds rejected?
Because the village maps showed that Gandke shares a long common boundary with Kankebar, not with Murramkala, so Murramkala was not the ‘nearest village’ for valuation.
Did the High Court spell out solatium and interest?
No. It said the claimants are entitled to the statutory benefits under the 2013 Act as granted in the reference court’s judgment and awards, now at the enhanced rate, and directed that a decree be prepared.
Conclusion
The judgment is a reminder that the 2013 Act prescribes a method, not a discretion: when the reference court skipped the sale-deed exercise and settled on Rs 11,000, the High Court went back to the statute, the village maps and the three-year window and arrived at a rate nearly nine times higher.
Practical takeaway: In a land reference, build the record for Section 26 — village maps, adjacency, and sale deeds from the three years before the notification — because that evidence is what the appellate court will use to fix market value.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com