2025: JHHC: 21514 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 76 of 2022 Suresh Mahato, aged about 70 years, son of Late Banbihari Mahto, resident of Dindli Basti, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikela- Kharsawan … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Apurv, Advocate Ms. Moushimi Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Adv, For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate --- 23/30th July 2025 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29th March 2012 passed by the learned Civil-II (Senior Division), Saraikela in Reference Case No. 09 of 1989. Arguments of the appellant 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation with respect to the acquisition of land. He has submitted that the State Government had issued declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide declaration dated 16.04.1964 by which total area of land measuring about 112.2 acres of village Dindli within police Station Adityapur, District Singhbhum. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that the matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with the same land acquisition proceedings in Civil Appeals Nos. 1005-6 of 1988 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10341 and 10015 of 1987) decided on 21.03.1988 reported in AIR 1988 SC 2134 (Bihar State Housing Board, State of Bihar & 2025: JHHC: 21514 2 Others vs. Ban Bihari Mahto & Others) and it was held therein that the compensation for the acquisitions should be paid as if the acquisition were made on 01.03.1988. The learned counsel submits that the reference of this SLP and the fact that the matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been given in very first paragraph of the impugned judgment. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the total acquired land involved in the present case is 8.66 acres. He has submitted that as is apparent from the petition being L.A. Case No. 09 of 1989 filed by the present appellant in Land Acquisition Case No. 09/1964-65 award No. 4 dated 20.09.1988 that the land mentioned in Schedule-A thereof along with the property in Schedule-B which consisted of trees and house were acquired. He has submitted that the compensation as fixed was on much lower side and accordingly a reference was made which was numbered as Reference Case No. 09/1989, so far as the present appeal is concerned. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that number of sale deeds were produced before the learned court but all the sale deeds were rejected and all the oral evidences were found to be not reliable and ultimately the learned court has refused to enhance the compensation. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that while considering the materials on record, so far as the documentary evidences are concerned, the learned court has referred specifically to Exhibit 1/3 which was sale deed No. 1104 of 31.03.1989. He has submitted that even this sale deed along with other sale deed were refused to be considered as exemplar sale by observing that the land under those sale deeds are not adjoining to the land involved in this case. The learned counsel has submitted that property in the said deed was of the same mouza i.e. Dindli within Police Station Adityapur and the land acquired in the present case was a part of acquisition of large chunk of land of total of 112.2 acres. He has submitted that the reason assigned by the learned court to reject the aforesaid sale deed 2025: JHHC: 21514 3 exhibit-1/3 is not in accordance with the law, inasmuch as, the exemplar sale deed need not be adjoining land, it could be of the same mouza. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that much reliance is being placed on the aforesaid sale deed No. 1104 dated 31.03.1989 in view of the fact that arising out of the same land acquisition proceedings, the matter was decided by this Court in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 and F.A. No. 36 of 1994 as back as on 01.11.2012 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 07 of 1989 and the aforesaid sale deed was considered for the purposes of arriving at the compensation amount and the said sale deed was exhibited as Exhibit- 1/B in the said case. The sale deed number and the date has also been mentioned therein. The learned counsel has also submitted that taking the said sale deed into consideration and also considering the fact that the same was of a date after 01.03.1988, this Court in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 has ultimately fixed the compensation @ Rs. 2,200/- per decimal. He submits that it may be taken into consideration that the entire chunk of land were acquired by the same proceeding and were also related to the same mouza, therefore, same compensation may be fixed as has been fixed in F.A. No. 35 of 1994. He has also submitted that the property involved in this case is also of village Dindli P.S. Adityapur District Singhbhum as was involved in aforesaid F.A. No. 35 of 1994. Arguments of the respondent 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the sale deeds have been rightly rejected from consideration and the oral evidences were also not convincing as the oral evidences were not supported by any documents and therefore the learned court has rightly refused to enhance the compensation amount. He has also submitted that even the father of the present appellant, who was examined as PW-4 and was awardee in the present case, has also not supported his case, inasmuch as, he was not able to support his own statement. The father of the appellant was claiming compensation @ Rs. 2025: JHHC: 21514 4 50,000/- per katha but could not produce any evidence in support of his claim. Findings of this Court 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the land which are involved in the present case and the land which was involved in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 and F.A. No. 36 of 1994 were acquired by virtue of notification dated 16.04.1964 at one go and total area 112.2 acres of land in village Dindli within P.S. Adityapur, District Singhbhum was acquired and so far as the present appellant is concerned, his land was to the extent of 8.66 acres. 11. It further appears that the learned court has considered the oral evidences produced on behalf of the claimant and has found that the witnesses though had claimed much higher compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- per katha but had not supported their statement by documentary evidences and has found that their evidence was not reliable. However, the fact remains that before the learned court a number of deeds were exhibited; some of them were lease deeds and others were sale deeds and one of the sale deeds was exhibit 1/3 being sale deed No. 1104 dated 31.03.1989. Exhibit 1/3 reveals that the same is also situated within P.S. Adityapur District Singhbhum and mouza has been mentioned as Mouza Bhatia. 12. This Court finds that with respect to the properties relating to Mouza Dindli which is the same mouza as involved in this case, this Court in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 has relied upon the aforesaid sale deed which in the present case is exhibit-1/3 and in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 it was exhibit 1/B and by a detailed judgment, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,200/- per decimal from Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The findings of this Court in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 is recorded in paragraph 11 to 14 which is quoted as under: - “11. From perusal of the relevant provisions contained in Sec.23 of the Land Acquisition Act it appears that before determining compensation 2025: JHHC: 21514 5 the court has to see the market value of the property at the time of acquisition and also the damage sustained by the applicant from the acquisition. The applicants have not led any evidences regarding the damages sustained by them out of acquisition and they have only led the evidences regarding the market value of the land therefore they are not entitled to special damages as provided in the aforesaid provision. 12. In my opinion Exhibit – 1 and Exhibit – 1/a is not relevant for the determination of compensation because they are small plots and obviously the rate of small plot must be higher than the big plot. Exhibit – 1/b is a big plot of admeasuring about 59.5 decimal sold on 31-03- 1989 at a total consideration of Rs.1,42,571/- @ Rs.2400 (approx.) per decimil therefore the said rate appears to be relevant for the purpose of determination of compensation in this case. Since this rate was prevailing as on 31.03.1989, while considering the question of determination of compensation in the instant case, the same is required to be assessed by taking into consideration the relevant date i.e. 01.03.1988, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1005-06 of 1988 arises out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10341 & 10015 of 1987. Accordingly, it would be just and proper to consider the market rate of the plots in question at the rate of Rs.2200/- per decimal. 13. Now coming to the issue with regard to grant of solatium, the provisions of Section 23 1(1-A) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is required to be taken into consideration, which reads as under: - “1((1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub- section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. (2) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided the Court shall in every case award a sum of 1 [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.” 2025: JHHC: 21514 6 In view of the above provision, the learned court below was also required to consider the amount of solatium at the rate of 30 per cent per annum. In view of the discussions made with regard to the amount awarded -under the solatium, the court below has discussed the said part in paragraph 23 while passing the final order, but it appears that the amount of solatium has not been considered in view of the provision as contained in Section 23 sub clause (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 14. In view of above fact and circumstances of the case, the compensation is required to be enhanced from Rs. 40,000/- per acre (Rs. 400 per decimal) to Rs.2,20,000/- per acre (Rs. 2,200/- per decimal) and also solatium at the rate of 30% on the awarded amount as provided under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly the compensation per decimal is hereby order to be enhance at the rate of Rs.2200 per decimal with solatium at the rate of 30% on the awarded amount. Therefore the respondents are directed to calculate the compensation as per the rate enhanced by this court and pay the same to the appellants within two months from the date of receipt of the order.” 13. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court in the present case has refused to consider the aforesaid sale deed particularly exhibit-1/3 by stating that it is not adjoining to the land involved in the present case. However, the same property was considered for the village Dindli in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 and compensation was enhanced. No reason has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent as to why the same view be not taken by this Court as has been taken in F.A. No. 35 of 1994. 14. This Court is of the considered view that the persons, whose land has been acquired at one go and at one point of time by the same notification and belonging to the same village, and no distinguishing feature with respect to the land having been pointed out, are entitled to be treated at par . 15. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to follow the judgment passed by this Court in F.A. No. 35 of 1994 and this appeal is partly allowed in the 2025: JHHC: 21514 7 same terms, inasmuch as, the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 40,000/- per acre (Rs. 400 per decimal) to Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre (Rs. 2,200/- per decimal) and also solatium @ 30% on the awarded amount as provided under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 16. The respondent is directed to calculate the compensation amount as per the rate enhanced by this Court and pay the same to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. 17. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/-