2025:JHHC:26949 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 30 of 2008 C.M.D., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, through its General Manager (L&R) T.N.B. Rao, S/o T Subbaiah, R/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, Kanke Road, PO Kanke, PS Gonda, District Ranchi … … Appellant Versus 1. Dwendra Nath Modi (delete vide order dated 24.02.2015) 1(a) Pushpa Devi, wife of Late Dwendra Nath Modi 1(b) Soniya Murari, daughter of Late Dwendra Nath Modi 1(c) Manju Mittl, Daughter of Late Dwendra Nath Modi … … Applicants/Respondents 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh … … Opposite party/Proforma Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the Intervener : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Adv. --- 29/2nd September 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the intervener. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.08.2007 passed in L.R. Case No. 458/1992 corresponding to L.A. Case No. 05/86- 87 passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge-cum-Special Judge, L.A., Hazaribagh by which the reference was allowed along with other analogous cases holding that the rates of lands should be assessed and treated at Rs. 2,800/- per decimal for giving compensation to the awardees. The impugned judgment is common judgment in connection with numerous L.R. Cases total 51 in number right from L.A. Case No. 411/92 to 461/92. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 08.05.2025, substituted service of notice upon 2025:JHHC:26949 2 respondent nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) through newspaper, namely, Dainik Bhaskar having circulation at Hazaribag has been published on 10.06.2025. A photocopy of the newspaper publication has been placed on record. The original newspaper has been produced during the course of hearing. The learned counsel undertakes to file original newspaper in the registry by tomorrow. In spite of substituted service of notice, no one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a batch of cases have been decided vide judgment dated 12.06.2019 passed in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 and other analogous cases and the matter was remanded back to the learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication as there was no reason assigned by the learned trial court to give compensation @ Rs. 2800 per decimal. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgment passed in F.A. No. 10 of 2008. The learned counsel submits that the present appeal was adjourned at that time on account of the fact that the substitution of the respondent no.1 was pending. 5. The learned counsel submits that the matter was remanded to the concerned court by observing that it was not mentioned in the impugned judgment as to on what basis, the compensation @ Rs. 2,800/- has been arrived at and the finding of the learned court about the market value was not supported by any reason and the finding was not in consonance with the documentary evidence on record. The learned counsel submits that this appeal be also remanded to the concerned court in terms of judgment passed in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 and there is no distinguishing feature as the entire batch was decided on the same set of evidence placed on record and by common judgement. 6. The learned counsel for the intervener has submitted that the petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was decided with respect to apportionment and the said proceeding ended in compromise and therefore the intervener has substantial interest in the awarded amount. However, he submits that if the matter is remanded in terms of 2025:JHHC:26949 3 the judgment passed in F.A. No. 10 of 2008, then the intervener shall take appropriate steps as per law. 7. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the private respondents in spite of substituted service of notice. However, one intervention application has been filed and it is the claim of the intervener that he is entitled for the entire awarded amount and his claim is based on certain compromise in L.R. Case No. 576 of 1992 which as per the intervener was decided after passing of the impugned judgment and the decision was under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the intervener, this Court finds that numerous L.R. cases out of the batch L.R. cases which were disposed of vide impugned judgment, have been ultimately disposed of by this Court in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 with other analogous cases. 9. The findings recorded in F.A. No. 10 of 2008 in paragraph 11 to 15 are quoted as under: - “11. I find that the lands involved in these batch of appeals were acquired for the purpose of Central Coalfields Limited. Notification was published on 28.07.1987 and the declaration is dated 07.08.1989. Total area acquired is 94.55 acres, out of which objection has been raised in respect of 76.75 acres of land. It is also admitted fact that the lands were classified into 8 categories, i.e., Dhan I, Dhan II, Dhan III, Tanr I, Tanr II, Tanr II, Parti and Gairmazuruwa Aam. There is no evidence that the nature of land has changed. The objectors, mainly challenge the rate, which was fixed by the authority in respect of each category of the land. Be it mentioned that the rates are as follows: - Dhan I Rs.1050/- per decimal Dhan II Rs.656.25 per decimal Dhan III Rs.525/- per decimal Tanr I Rs.1050/- per decimal Tanr II Rs.262.50 per decimal Tanr III Rs.65.63 per decimal Parti Rs.32.81 per decimal Gairmazurua Rs.32.81 per decimal 2025:JHHC:26949 4 12. These are the rates, which were prevalent for the purpose of registration. The objectors relied upon Exhibit 2 series. These exhibits are two sale deeds. In Sale Deed No.5326, 5 decimals of land was sold at Rs.20,000/-. Similarly Sale Deed No.3891 is also in respect of 5 decimals of land and the consideration amount is Rs.21,000/-. As per these two sale deeds, the rate per decimal comes to Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4200/- per decimal. When I carefully look at these two sale deeds, I find that these sale deeds are in respect of lands of Village Kuju and not of Village Murpa. From the oral evidence of the witnesses, especially, A.W.3 and A.W.1, I find that this particular land is situated 1 k.m. away from Kuju Market. A.W.1 has stated that the acquired lands are in between Kuju and Arra. This shows that the sale deeds are of different place and not of the place from where acquisition had taken place. The Court below, on the basis of these two sale deeds, had concluded that the value of good quality of land is Rs.4,000/- per decimal, which the learned Court below could not have. 13. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, I find that A.W.1 has stated that the lands were declared to be urban, but, no documents were produced in support of such statement. A.W.3 has stated that the land is 1 k.m. away from Kuju Market and the hospital is also 1 k.m. away from the acquired lands. A.W.4 has stated that the railway halt is 2 k.m. away from the acquired lands. The witnesses have also stated that the acquired land are 1 k.m. away from the highway. Evidence of these witnesses suggests that the land was not on the highway. Exhibit ‘C’ series are the sale figures of land of the same village, i.e., Murpa. From the said sale figures, I find that the sale deed, which was executed on 25.09.1987 being sale deed No.11066 in respect of 7.36 acres of land fetched Rs.21,000/- only. Against the said sale value, the classification of land was shown as mixed. Similarly, the sale deed dated 20.06.1986 covering 20 decimals of land fetched Rs.21,000/-. Dhan II land of 4 decimals fetched Rs.10,000/-, which was sold vide deed dated 21.06.1986. The deed dated 19.03.1987 for 9 decimals of land fetched Rs.10,000/. These figures, clearly suggest that there are different rates in respect of each category of land. The Court below also admitted that the rates are varying in respect of the land, but, concluded that the higher category of land is valued at Rs.4,000/- per decimal. This valuation of Rs.4,000/- is solely based on the two 2025:JHHC:26949 5 sale deeds produced by the objectors. As held earlier, these two sale deeds could not have been the basis for assessing the sale figure of the lands, which are fertile, because of the reason that these two deeds are not of the same village where the acquired lands situate. Further the area of land covered by the said sale deeds is only 5 decimals of land, which cannot be taken as basis where huge chunk of land is acquired. Further, I find that the Court below has not considered the rate chart in proper perspective. The Court below, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, while deciding the amount of compensation, has considered the market value of fertile lands to be Rs.4,000/- per decimal. The learned court also concluded that Dhan I, Dhan II, Dhan III and Tanr I lands are only 26 acres out of 76.75 acres. While doing so, has concluded that the correct market value of the entire land, i.e., 76.75 acres should be Rs.2,800/- per decimal. On what basis, this amount of Rs.2,800/- per decimal has been arrived at has not been mentioned. Thus, I feel that the conclusion arrived by the learned Court about the market value of the land is not supported by any reasons. Further, the same is not in consonance with the documentary evidence on record. Since there is no reason as to why the amount of Rs.2,800/- per decimal has been assessed as market value of the lands, I feel that the said assessment and valuation cannot be sustained. 14. In view of the aforesaid findings, these batch of appeals need to be allowed. The judgment and the award passed by the Court below, which are impugned in each of the Land Reference Case impugned in each of the First Appeals passed by the Court below are set aside. The matter in each of the Land Reference Case in these batch of appeals is remitted back to the Court of Subordinate Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh for deciding each of the cases afresh taking into consideration all the documents, which are on record. It is made clear that the concerned Court will try to dispose of the Land Reference Cases within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records from this Court after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. 15. Office is directed to remit the Lower Court Records in connection with each of the Land Reference Cases in these batch of analogous appeals through Special Messenger to the Court below.” 2025:JHHC:26949 6 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the present appeal arising out of L.R. Case No. 458 of 1992 is also disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in F.A. No. 10 of 2008. 11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment relating to L.R. Case No. 458 of 1992 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned for fresh decision in accordance with law and in terms of judgement passed by this Court in F.A. No. 10 of 2008. 12. The appellant to appear before the learned court on 15th December 2025 at 11:00 a.m. 13. So far as interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2809 of 2015 seeking intervention as respondent No. 3 in the present appeal is concerned, this Court is not inclined to allow the intervention application as the matter has been remanded back to the concerned court. I.A. No. 2809 of 2015 is hereby closed. However, it will be open to the intervener to take appropriate steps before the learned court in order to protest his interest, if any, as may be permissible under law. 14. This appeal is hereby disposed of. 15. Office is directed to retain the photocopy of the records as received from the concerned court which may be used in other similar pending cases. 16. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 17. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through “e- mail/FAX”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 02.09.2025 Mukul/-