AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,
Heard the parties.Â,
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order and award dated 28.09.2004 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Palamau at",
Daltonganj in L.A. Case No. 5/96 by which, learned court below has dismissed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.",
The brief fact of the case is that in total 2.435 acre of land of Mauja Rajhara under Khata Nos. 7 and 54 bearing plot no. 1384E, 1917E/2, 1672E,",
2267E/2 was acquired by the State of Bihar for Central Coal Fields Limited (CCL). The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894",
was published on 15.09.1993.Â,
The case of the applicant in the court below- who is appellant herein is that in total they were awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 60,388.20 in",
respect of acquisition of their land consequent upon the said notification, which is inadequate and arbitrary. It is further case of the applicantappellant",
that substantial amount of the acquired land of area 0.3 acres comes in the category of class I Dhan land. The applicant-appellants have developed the,
acquired land to a great extent. The said land is situated between two rivers namely river Lawji and river Sadabah. 0.995 acres of land of plot no.,
1917/2 is situated at the bank of river Lawji and 1.11 acres of land of plot no. 1672, 24 acres of land of plot no. 1384 and 0.07 acres of land of plot no.",
226 is situated at the bank of the river Sadabah. Because of the facility of irrigation therein, the said land was yielding 60 mounds of paddy per acre",
besides, wheat, grams, pulses (Arhar) of 50, 30, 40 mounds respectively were also yielded by the said land. It is also the case of the applicant-",
appellant that 20 trees of Senegalia catechu (Khair), 10 trees of Acacia (Babool), 06 trees of Sissoo (Shesam), 05 trees of Semal (Somar), in total",
worth for Rs. 80,000/- were existing over the said land, the value of which, was not assessed. It is also the case of the applicant- appellant that the",
said land is important from the point of view of business because of existence of the mines in the said Mauja- Rajhara. According to the applicant-,
appellant, the value of the acquired land would be Rs. 3,000/- per decimal. After notice, the opposite party no. 2 C.C.L. entered appearance and filed",
written statement and besides making averments regarding usual defence, the opposite party no. 2 denied all the averments made by the applicant-",
appellant. They denied the existence of any tree over said land. In support of his case, the applicant- appellant examined altogether three witnesses",
besides proving three sale deeds of the same Mauja, to which, the acquired land belongs and have been marked as Exhibit 1, 1/A and 1/B. From the",
side of the OP2 respondents, two witnesses were examined and they have also proved two documents which has been marked as Exhibit A, A/1 and",
award has been marked as Exhibit B and the Mulyankan Khatiyaan has been marked as Exhibit B/1.Â,
Learned court below after taking into the consideration the material and evidence adduced by the parties in the record, dismissed the reference as",
already indicate above.Â,
Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has failed to take note of the fact of the",
existence of the tree on the acquired land and also did not consider the three sale deeds executed by the appellant being the Exhibits 1, 1/a, 1/b in its",
proper perspective and also failed to take into consideration the fact that the land is situated by the side of the road and that it had commercial value,
being situated near the mines. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order and award be set aside and the compensation awarded to the",
applicant- appellant be enhanced.Â,
The learned counsels for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned order and award and submitted that compensation as per law,
has already been paid to the applicant- appellant and the learned court below has considered the evidence in the record in right perspective. Hence, it",
is submitted that the impugned judgment and the award having been passed in accordance with law, the same be confirmed.Â",
Having heard both the parties, and perusal of the record, the only point for determination involved in this appeal is whether the learned court below",
has rightly appreciated the evidence in the record?Â,
Out of the three witnesses examined by the applicant-appellant, P.W.1- Kanchan Pandey who is the applicant-appellant no. 1 has deposed on",
behalf of the rest of three applicant-appellant also. He has stated that on the aforesaid acquired land 20 trees of Senegalia catechu (Khair), 10 trees of",
Acacia (Babool), 06 trees of Sissoo (Shesam), 05 trees of Semal (Somar) were existing and the value of which will be Rs. 80,000/-. He further",
stated that the applicants have not been paid compensation in respect of the trees. The land is situated by the side of the road at a distance of twenty,
kilometers from Daltonganj. In his cross â€"examination, he has stated that in the objection which was sought for from him before the acquisition, he",
mentioned about the classification of the land and also mentioned about the existence of the trees over the acquired land but he did not mention the,
magnitude of the trees standing over there nor he got the age of the trees assessed by an expert. He has further stated that the diameter of the stem,
of the Khair trees were between 3-5 feet.Â,
P.W. 2 â€"Raj Mani Singh is Assistant of the Registry office of Daltonganj. He has proved the sale deeds which have been marked as exhibit 1,",
1/a and 1/b. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the exhibits 1, 1/a or 1/b.",
P.W. 3- Shyamlal Pandey has stated about the classification of the land and area and he has stated about the nature of the area of each of the plot,
of the land in respect of the acquisition of which, this reference has been made. He has further stated that the land acquisition officer has assessed the",
value of the Tand-III land as Rs. 12,000/- per acre, Dhan II land as per Rs. 27,000/- per acre. He has also stated about the existence of 32-33 trees of",
different varieties over the acquired land. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not sold or purchased any land in recent past.Â",
O.P.W. 1- Maheshwar Singh has stated about the acquisition of land and he has also state about the area of different plots of land. He denied all,
the averments made in the application of the applicant regarding existence of the trees over the acquired land and its value being Rs. 80,000/-. In his",
cross-examination, he has stated that for the first time, he was associated with the case in the year 1996. He was not part of the survey team, which",
was constituted for surveying the acquired land for the purpose of acquisition. None of the officers of C.C.L. went for the survey and C.C.L. did not,
know about the type of land, which was notified for the acquisition. He cannot say the boundary of Rajhara village. He has stated about the type of",
the land on the basis of the report, which was given by the Government. He has never verified the contents of the report of the Government. The",
compensation was given on the basis of the rate fixed by the Registry office.Â,
O.P.W. 2- Ram Narayan Prasad has stated that the land was acquired for expansion of the Rajhara colliery. He has seen the acquired land.,
There was no tree over the acquired land at any point of time. He denied the averments made by the applicant in the application. In his,
crossexamination, he has stated that he joined in the Rajhara area in the year 1993 and prior to that, he never went to Rajhara. He does not know",
when the land in question was acquired. He has not seen the revenue records of the Rajhara colliery. Prior to his joining Rajhara colliery in the year,
1993, the mining work was going on in that area. Mining activity was also going on over the acquired land in question. Prior to him, there was",
no         revenue Inspector in the Rajhara colliery. The office of Rajhara colliery is under Patan police Station and Mauja â€",
Rajhara is under Bishrampur police station. He has also stated that Aurangabad and Daltonganj road is passing through the Mauja-Parwa. The,
distance of the Rajhara station is about four kilometers from the acquired land. He has denied the suggestion that the existence of the Rajhara station,
is one kilometer from the acquired land and that one girls’ school is also situated at Rajhara.,
Perusal of the exhibit 1 reveals that the said sale deed bearing no. 11771 in respect of plot no. 836, Khata No. 106, Mauja - Rajhara colliery, police",
Station â€" Bishrampur was executed on 07.12.1989 and it was registered on 11.11.1990, in respect of area of 2.7/8 decimals, which can be rounded",
off to 02 decimals was sold for consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/- by Jainul Hussain in favour of Babu Ram Saw but the said land was also",
Plus factors Â,Minus factors
          Â
smallness of size Â","Â 1. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â largeness of
area
proximity to a road.
frontage on a road.","2. situation in the interior at a
distance from the Road
narrow strip of land with very
small frontage compared to depth.
nearness to developed,4. lower level requiring the
area.,depressed portion to be filled up.
regular shape.,"5. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
remoteness
              from
developed locality
level vis-a-vis land under
acquisition.","6. some special disadvantageous
factor which would deter a
purchaser
special value for an owner
of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some very
special advantage",Â