Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Limited vs Ram Nandan Prasad S/O Madho Prasad … on 19 May, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:15302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 4 of 2014
Central Coalfields Limited, through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House,
P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager
(L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o Late R. Ranjeet Singh, R/o Jawahar Nagar
Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi
... ... Opposite Party/Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Nandan Prasad S/o Madho Prasad (Substituted v/o dated
17.07.2023)
1(a). Umesh Kumar Gupta
1(b). Dinesh Kumar
1(c). Mukesh Gupta
1(d). Ramesh Kumar
All S/o Late Ram Nandan Prasad
2. Jadu Nandan Prasad S/o Madho Prasad (Substituted v/o dated
17.07.2023)
2(a). Santosh Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Jadu Nandan Prasad Gupta @
Yadu Nandan Prasad Gupta,
All residents of Bara Bazar, Mohalla- Bara Bazar, P.O. + P.S. +
District- Hazaribagh- 825301
... ... Applicants/Respondents
3. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-
Hazaribagh
... ... Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent
With
F.A. No. 5 of 2014
Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited,
through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-
Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o
Late R. Ranjeet Singh, R/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.-
Gonda, District- Ranchi
... ... Opposite Party/Appellant
Versus
1. Soharai Manjhi
2. Lakhan Manjhi
Both sons of Late Dinu Manjhi, residents of Village- Pindra, P.O. &
P.S.- Mandu, District- Hazaribagh
... ... Applicants/Respondents
3. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-
Hazaribagh
... ... Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent
With
F.A. No. 6 of 2014
Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited,
through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-
Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o
Late R. Ranjeet Singh, r/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.-
Gonda, District- Ranchi
... ... Opposite Party/Appellant
1
2026:JHHC:15302
Versus
1. Chandmuni Devi, W/o Late Lodha Manjhi
2. Mahalal Manjhi @ Mahadeo Manjhi, S/o Late Lodha Manjhi
(Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 deleted and substituted vide order dated
12.12.2025)
1. Govind Marandi, S/o Late Mahalal Manjhi, resident of Village-
Pindra, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, District- Hazaribagh
... ... Applicant/Respondent
2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-
Hazaribagh
... ... Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent
With
F.A. No. 7 of 2014
Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited,
through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-
Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o
Late R. Ranjeet Singh, r/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.-
Gonda, District- Ranchi
... ... Opposite Party/Appellant
Versus
1. Parwati Devi, W/o Jharilal Manjhi, resident of Village- Pindra, P.O.
& P.S.- Mandu, District- Hazaribagh
... ... Applicant/Respondent
2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-
Hazaribagh
... ... Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
: Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
(In all cases)
For contesting respondents : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Senior Advocate
: Ms. Sakshi Charu, Advocate
: Miss Kavita Kumari, Advocate
(In F.A. No. 4 & 5 of 2014)
: Mr. Sahdeo Mahto, Advocate
(In F.A. No. 6 of 2014)
: Mr. B.R. Rochan, Advocate
(F.A. No. 7 of 2014)
---
C.A.V. On 05.02.2026 Pronounced on 19.05.2026
1. All the four first appeals have been filed under section 20(1) of
the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the common Judgement
dated 30.05.2013 passed by the learned A.J.C.-I-cum- Tribunal under
the Coal Bearing Areas (A & D), Ranchi in Reference Case Nos.
2
2026:JHHC:15302
01/1996, 48/1995, 50/1995, 51/1995 and 49/1995. The connected
appeals are as under: -
First Appeal Name of Claimants Reference Case No.
FA No. 4/2014 Ram Nandan Prasad 01/1996
FA No. 5/2014 Soharai Manjhi & Anr 48/1995
FA No. 6/2014 Hopna Manjhi 50/1995
Chand Muni Devi & Ors 51/1995
FA No. 7/2014 Parwati Devi 49/1995
2. The acquired lands involved in these cases are relating to khata
no. 4 and 6 in Mouza- Pindra, Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag
and compensation for acquired land has been fixed the prevailing
market price at flat rate of Rs. 600/- per decimal; solatium @ 30%;
escalation @ 12% for the period from the date of publication of
notification under Section 4(1) of the of the aforesaid Act to under
Section 9 of the Act; interest @ 9 % for the first year and 15% per year
for rest of the period on the enhanced amount of compensation and
directed the appellant to pay the balance of the compensation amount
within three months from the date of the order and disposed of the
reference cases on contest.
3. The common appellant in all these appeals is the acquirer of land
(CCL) challenging enhancement of the rate of compensation of
acquired land of same village under the common Notification dated
13.01.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Act for prospects of coal
therein.
4. The Notification under Section 7(1) of the Act was published on
28.04.1982 and the Notification under Section 9 of the Act was
published on 01.10.1983. The aforesaid lands having different plot
numbers of Khata No. 4 and 6 of Village- Pindra alongwith trees
standing thereon were acquired in respect to the reference cases.
5. After acquisition of the lands, the claimants received their
respective compensation amounts under protest and thereafter, they
filed petitions under Section 17(2) of the Act for payment of higher
compensation, which were registered as aforesaid Reference Cases.
The claimants claimed higher compensation for land and also the trees.
3
2026:JHHC:15302
6. The learned Tribunal under the Coal Bearing Areas (A & D),
Ranchi framed the following points for determination:
(1) Is the compensation awarded to the claimants is according
to market value of the land prevailing at the time of
notification U/s 4(1) of the said Act?
(2) Are the claimants entitled to claim enhanced compensation
in respect of the land under acquisition-in-question?
(3) Are the claimants entitled to claim solatium, escalation
amount and interest at the prescribed rate on the market
value of the land as claimed?
7. The learned Tribunal took Point Nos. (1) & (2) together for
decision and recorded that the value of the tress has been assessed on
the rate assessed by the forest department. The learned Tribunal
recorded the admitted facts of the case.
8. The learned tribunal discussed the evidence of the witnesses
adduced on behalf of the claimants at Para-10 which reads as under:
"10. In light of above admitted facts, I would like to discuss
evidence adduced by the parties. Applicant Witness No.1 states that
CCL has given very less compensation though it requires
Rs.3,500/- per decimal. Further he states that said land is well
developed land. Similarly, Applicant Witness No.2 states that it is
developed land and it is having value @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal.
Applicant Witness No.3 and 4 have also corroborated same facts.
Applicant Witness No.5 states that this case has been filed for
enhanced compensation, but during evidence he has not disclosed
the rate of compensation. Applicant Witness No.6 states that
appropriate compensation will be @ Rs.6,000/- per decimal. Same
fact has been corroborated by Applicant Witness No.7. In Refence
Case No.1/1996, the applicant himself has been examined as
Witness No.1. He stated that acquired land is well developed land
which is adjacent to collieries and its compensation has been paid
very less, which is required to be enhanced @ Rs.10,000/- per
decimal. He has also given description of the trees standing thereon
at the time of acquisition and income to be derived from it."
9. The learned tribunal discussed the evidence of the witnesses
adduced on behalf of Union of India at Para-11 which reads as under:
"11. On the other hand, four witnesses have been examined by the
O.P. in these cases. who are common. O.P.W.-1 states that the rate
of compensation was fixed by the specialists who have fixed it after
assessment and inspection of the land and rate of the trees was also
4
2026:JHHC:15302
fixed as per fixed rate of government. Further he states that as per
rate available at district registry office, rate of compensation was
fixed according to the Act and acquired lands falls under the Coal
Minig Area. On identification of this witness, notification U/s. 9(1),
4(1) and 7(1) of the Act have been marked Exhibit- A, A/1 and A/2
respectively. At Para-21, he states that all these fields are under
West Bokaro Coal field Area which is running since 1974. O.P.W.-
2 has corroborated above evidence of O.P.W-1 and he states as
Para-5 that apart from appropriate compensation, service (job)
has also been given to the claimants and their claim is wrong. Same
fact has also been stated by O.P.W.-3 and he has corroborated
evidence of O.P.W.-1. O.P.W.-4 has brought the case record of all
these five Reference cases which have been marked Exhibit-B
series. During cross-examination at Para-10, he states that the
land of Village- Pindra is under West Bokaro Coal field. At Para-
12, he states that acquisition was made for mining of the Coal."
10. The learned tribunal discussed the exhibits adduced on behalf of
the parties at Para-12, 13 and 14 which reads as under:
"12. As documentary evidence, photo copy of the true copy of the
judgment dated 31.03.95 passed by the Hon'ble Court in respect to
the Appeal No.18-47/1993 (R) in which compensation of the land
of village Laiyo was under consideration has been filed which has
been marked Exhibit-1. In that very case, tribunal has enhanced the
rate of compensation @ Rs. 1200/- per decimal which was reduced
by the Hon'ble Court after considering all evidence and it was fixed
at the rate of Rs.600/- per decimal as flat rate related to all
acquired lands of the Village- Laiyo without any classification and
said rate is inclusive of the rate of the trees standing on those lands.
Exhibit-1/A is the photo copy of certified copy of the judgment
passed by the tribunal on 01.03.94 under the Coal Bearing Areas
Act in respect to 16 reference cases related to the lands of village-
Parej and Daru Kashmar and after considering all the evidence
including sale deeds produced before the tribunal, flat rate of
Rs.72,700/- per acre was granted by enhancement of the
compensation awarded in respect to acquired land. Ext-2 is photo
copy of map of Mandu Anchal which shows that village-Pindra is
in the vicinity of the village-Parej and Daru Kashmar.
13. It is very much clear from Ext-1/A that in respect to the land
of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar, rate was enhanced by the
tribunal and fixed @ Rs.72,700/-per acre. Same rate was also fixed
by the tribunal in judgment and award dated 3.9.92 passed in
Reference Cases No.57 to 88 of 1989 in respect to the land related
to Village- Laiyo and it has been reduced by the Hon'ble High
Court @ Rs.600/- per decimal vide Ext-1. However, there is no any
evidence to show that Ext-1/A has been challenged before the
Hon'ble High Court and it has got its finality.
5
2026:JHHC:15302
14. Though in this case, no any sale deed has been brought into
evidence by any of the party to prove the prevailing market rate in
the locality, but on the basis of Ext-1, I am of the opinion that rate
fixed by the O.P. in respect to Village- Laiyo was not adequate and
in accordance with prevailing market rate. In that very case related
to Exhibit-1, several sale deeds were produced by the claimants
and all were considered by the Hon'ble Court. On the basis of
evidence available on that very record, flat rate was fixed @
Rs.600/- per decimal. Exhibit-A-series are the notifications U/s. 4,
7 and 9 of the Act. Exhibit-B-series are the case records of
claimants; Exhibit-C is record related to fixation of compensation
and Exhibit-D is the record related to fixation of rate of
compensation of Village- Pindra.
11. The learned Tribunal decided the Point Nos. (1) & (2) in favour
of the claimants, except in respect of their claim for higher
compensation for the trees, and against the Union of India, vide
findings at Para- 16 as under:
16. In light of above discussion, both these points are decided in
favour of the claimants, except in respect of their claim for higher
compensation of the trees and against O.P. Accordingly, rate of
compensation is being fixed at the rate of Rs.600/- per decimal in
respect to acquired land."
12. The learned Tribunal considered Point No.3 with regard to the
issue of payment of solatium, interest and escalation on compensation
at Para-17, which reads as under:
"17. Point No.3:- In respect to this point, I would like to mention
here that it is admitted fact that solatium @ 30%, escalation
@12% per annum for the period from the date of publication of
notification U/s 4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @
9% per year for first year and 15% for the remaining period on
assessed amount of compensation by the OP has already been
granted, as it is apparent from the documentary evidence produced
by the OP. Therefore, it is admitted fact of the O.P. which cannot
be taken away in any view of the matter. Hence, I am of the view
that claimants are also entitled to solatium @ 30%, escalation @
12% per annum for the period from the date of publication of
notification U/s 4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @
9% per year for first year and 15% for the remaining period on the
enhanced compensation amount also. Accordingly, this point is
also being decided in favour of the claimants and against the O.P."
13. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal determined and fixed the
prevailing market price of the acquired lands @ Rs.600/- per decimal
and further observed that solatium @ 30%, escalation @12% per
6
2026:JHHC:15302
annum for the period from the date of publication of notification U/s
4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @ 9% per year for first
year and 15% for the remaining period on assessed amount of
compensation by the OP has already been granted, and also held that
claimants are also entitled to solatium @ 30%, escalation @ 12% per
annum for the period from the date of publication of notification U/s
4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @ 9% per year for first
year and 15% for the remaining period on the enhanced compensation
amount also.
14. The enhancement of compensation of land was primarily on the
basis of Exhibit-1, the judgment dated 31.03.95 passed by this Court in
respect to the Appeal No.18-47/1993 (R) in which compensation of the
land of village Laiyo acquired through the same notification where the
enhancement of compensation at flat rate of Rs. 1200/- per decimal was
reduced to flat rate of Rs.600/- per decimal without any classification.
The learned tribunal referred to Exhibit-1/A also which is the judgment
passed by the tribunal on 01.03.94 related to the lands of village-Parej
and Daru Kashmar which were also acquired by the same notification
where the tribunal enhanced the compensation at flat rate of Rs.72,700/-
but refused to rely upon the same as it was not clear as to whether the
same was subject matter of challenge in the High Court inspite of
recording that as per Exhibit-2 (map of Mandu Anchal) village-Pindra
is in the vicinity of the village-Parej and Daru Kashmar.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
15. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
claimants had challenged the assessment of compensation made by the
competent authority before the learned court and therefore the burden
of proof that the compensation was not as per law was upon them. The
claimants did not produce any material with respect to the acquisition
of land/sale of land in the same village and mere statement that the
compensation was inadequate was not sufficient. The learned court was
not justified in interfering with the quantum of compensation fixed by
the competent authority. The learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 14
SCC 50 (Ramlal Deochand Sah vs. State of Maharashtra) Paragraph-
7
2026:JHHC:15302
9. The learned counsel has also relied upon Section 101, 102 and 103
of the Evidence Act to submit that the burden is upon the person who
approaches the court and the burden having not been discharged by the
claimants, the interference in the quantum of compensation was wholly
uncalled for.
16. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed in
Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2022 (Ramrao Shankar Tapase versus
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others)
reported in (2022) 7 SCC 563 Para 13 to submit that even for the same
locality different market value for different land is required to be
determined. The nature of land is also required to be seen while fixing
the rate of compensation. The learned counsel has submitted that
several villages have been acquired by the same Notification and the
learned court has referred to Exhibit-1 which is in relation to another
Village- Laiyo and the land involved in Exhibit-1 was not acquired by
the same notification. The reliance on Exhibit-1 is not as per law. The
learned counsel has also referred to the map to submit that the Village-
Laiyo is much away from the acquired land in the present case which is
village 'Pindra'.
17. However, during the course of arguments and from the
notification involved in this case, it is apparent that the land of village
Pindra, Tapin, Parej, Daru Kashmar and land of some other villages
were acquired by the same notification. It also appeared that the learned
trial court has also recorded that Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar were
adjoining to village 'Pindra'.
18. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land
of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar is not adjoining to Pindra.
However, during the course of hearing, it transpired that Village- Parej
is adjoining to village Tapin and Village- Mansai and Village- Daru
Kashmar fall adjoining to Village- Tapin on the other side.
19. The learned counsel also submitted that so far as Exhibit-1/A is
concerned, the same was in relation to acquisition of land of village
Parej and Daru Kashmar and the compensation as fixed for these
villages has been exhibited before the learned court as Exhibit-1/A. He
also submitted that the compensation so fixed was the subject matter of
8
2026:JHHC:15302
consideration by this Court in M.A. No.50 of 1995 and analogous cases
wherein the compensation has been reduced to Rs.600/- per decimal
apart from other amounts. The learned counsel submitted that the
judgement in M.A. was challenged in LPA. No. 02 of 2005 and other
analogous case and the LPA has also been dismissed. The learned
counsel submitted that while disposing of aforesaid M.A. No. 50 of
1995, the development cost to the extent of 20% was also deducted. The
learned counsel submitted that be it village Parej or Daru Kashmar or
village Laiyo, ultimately the compensation was fixed @ Rs.600/- per
decimal.
20. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 (Lal Chand versus Union of India and
Another) Para-22, to submit that the development cost can extend
between 20% to 75%. On the point of development cost, the learned
counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474
[Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others versus
State of Haryana and Another] Paragraph 8, 9 and 10 and also
judgement passed by this court in F.A. No. 71 of 2015 Paragraph 38.
It is submitted that in Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2022 reported in (2022)
7 SCC 563, the principles of deduction on account of development cost
have been mentioned in Paragraph-11. The learned counsel has also
relied upon the judgment reported in 1998 SCC Online Patna 186
(Union of India versus Kashinath Mahto) Paragraph-14 to submit that
in the said judgment, the development cost was enhanced to the extent
of 40% and the same judgment is related to the same Act under which
the land acquisition in the present case has been made.
21. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, it is submitted that
nothing much is to be placed except to the extent that P.W.-1 at Para-5
and P.W.-2 at Paragraph-3 have stated that the physical possession of
the property involved in these cases was taken only in the year 1996.
The learned counsel submitted that even if the interest is found payable,
then also, interest would be payable post 1996 and not from the date of
acquisition. It has been submitted that the claimant having been in
9
2026:JHHC:15302
possession till 1996 have enjoyed the property and therefore, they are
not entitled to any interest.
22. The learned counsel submits that the payment of interest is
governed by the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and has referred to
Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act to submit that interest is
payable only when the possession is taken and compensation is not paid
or deposited.
23. The learned counsel has also submitted that the aforesaid
provision of payment of interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894
became applicable to the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as Coal Bearing
Act] only where virtue of the notification issued by the central
government to maintain parity in the matter of payment of
compensation, interest and solatium under both the Acts.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
24. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the judgment
passed by this court in F.A. No. 140 of 2016 [Union of India through
the Chief Revenue Officer, CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi vs.
Sitaram Sahu and Another] Paragraph- 48 and 49 to submit that in case
where no sale deed with respect to the same village is available, the sale
deed of adjoining village certainly be taken into consideration and some
amount of guess work is permissible in law. The learned counsel
submits that the CCL had not produced any sale deed and even the rate
chart does not refer to any sale deed. He has also submitted that rate
chart Exhibit-D was exhibited at the stage of the argument before the
learned court. The learned counsel has submitted that mere rate chart
by itself cannot be said to be evidence for the purposes of fixing of
compensation. Vide Exhibit-1 and also Exhibit-1/A, same rate of
compensation was fixed i.e. @ Rs. 600/- per decimal, and as per the
impugned judgment also, the rate of compensation fixed is @ Rs.600/-
per decimal. The impugned judgement does not call for any interference
particularly when the land involved in Exhibit-1/A and the land
involved in the present case were acquired by the same notification and
at the same time. The learned counsel has also submitted that the
10
2026:JHHC:15302
payment of interest and solatium also does not call for any interference
and the same is payable from the date of Notification issued under
Section 9 of the aforesaid Coal Bearing Act. The learned counsel
submits that so far as the circular issued by the central government is
concerned, the same also does not refer to the date of physical
possession of the property. He has also submitted that as per Section 9,
the possession of the property vests with the coal company upon
issuance of notification under Section 9 and the coal company acquire
the status of a lessee under the aforesaid Coal Bearing Act.
Rejoinder argument on behalf of the appellants
25. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that vide order dated 19.06.2018 the learned trial court by a detailed
order rejected the claim for additional compensation under Section 23-
(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
26. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has not
granted additional compensation but, in the decree, the additional
compensation has also been added. He submits that entitlement of
additional compensation is also required to be decided.
27. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment reported in
2024 SCC Online 1691 [New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs. And Others]
Paragraph- 14 and 43 to submit that the circle rate can also be
considered while awarding compensation by making marginal addition.
The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this
court in F.A. No. 492 of 2018 Paragraph- 113 to submit that
compensation can also be determined on the circle rate and that would
be a basis for guess work for fixing compensation.
28. Points for determination in this case are as follows: -
Whether, the learned tribunal erred in law in awarding
additional compensation although no additional compensation
has been awarded by the impugned judgement and the claim
for additional compensation has been earlier rejected vide
order dated 19.06.2018 by the learned trial court under Section
23-(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act?
And
11
2026:JHHC:15302
Whether, the learned tribunal erred in awarding interest and it
ought to have been awarded from the year 1996 as the
claimants have also allegedly deposed that they were
dispossessed in 1996?
Whether the impugned judgement enhancing the
compensation for acquired land at flat rate of Rs.600/- per
decimal call for any interference?
And
Whether the appellants are entitled to deduction on account of
development cost with respect to the acquired lands of village
Pindra?
Findings of this Court
29. Case of the Claimants
A. The common facts are that same rate of compensation was fixed
for the acquired land belonging to the same village and the
claimants claimed that the prevailing market rate was
Rs.10,000/- per decimal at the time of acquisition of the land and
therefore, the claimants received the payments under protest.
B. Further case of the claimants was that the acquired lands were
surrounded with many adjacent collieries, like Parej, Laiyo,
Baraghatu, Kedela, Toyar, Ara, Saru, Pers, Topa, Tapin,
Jharkhand and Rapodh which were nationalized in the year 1973
and since then, industrial activities are going on.
C. The acquired lands are situated beside the Patna-Ranchi National
Highway and are connected with pitch road and Shopping
Centers, Cinema Hall, Government Hospital, Haat, Market,
loading and unloading centers, office of the railway, post office
and other official buildings are also situated in the vicinity of the
acquired lands and therefore, potentiality and value of the
acquired lands is much more developed, but the same has not
been considered during assessment of the compensation amount.
D. There are many trees like Mango, Mahua, Guava, Kathal, Saal,
etc. which are having market rate @ Rs.500/- per sq. ft., but the
same has also not been considered by the acquiring authority.
12
2026:JHHC:15302
E. The rate of the said types of land has already been enhanced by
the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh in other cases related
to adjacent villages.
30. Case of the Union of India
I. The Union of India filed objection petitions / rejoinders in the
reference cases denying the claim of the claimants and with
common assertions that claim petitions are not maintainable and
no detail has been given in the petitions.
II. It was not mentioned in the claim petitions as to how and on what
basis the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation and in
absence of the relevant details it was difficult to respond to the
claim petitions.
III. The value of the acquired lands has been fixed on the basis of the
prevailing market rate of the lands at the time of acquisition,
which was assessed by experts and competent officers after
obtaining rate from the registry office.
31. The applicants/claimants examined 08 witnesses in support of
their case. Applicant Witness No.1 (Jhari Manjhi) is the common
witness in Reference Case Nos. 48/1995, 49/1995, 50/1995 and
51/1995. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that C.C.L. has given
very less compensation which should have been Rs.3,500/- per decimal.
The C.C.L. has opened mines over the lands. He further stated that
electricity, water, road and market are situated near their lands. During
cross-examination, he admitted that the lands were measured in his
presence. He further admitted at Para-5 that the notification for
acquisition of the lands was issued in the year 1980 and their possession
was taken in the year 1996. The lands were not tanr only. The value of
the lands was Rs.3,500/- per decimal in the year 1980 and he has seen
the sale deeds of the land but had not brought the same. He further
stated at Para-6 that Haat was being organized since about 20 years
over the government land after establishment of the colliery and there
was Haat at Pindra as back as in the year 1980 also and all the facilities
were available there.
13
2026:JHHC:15302
32. Applicant Witness No.2 (Md. Rafique) is the common witness in
Reference Case Nos. 48/1995, 49/1995, 50/1995 and 51/1995. In his
examination-in-chief, he deposed that he knows the acquired lands of
Hopna Manjhi and others which is situated adjoining to Parej Bangla
where there was mine of Ramgarh Raj since last 40 to 50 years.
Village- Pindra is situated at the adjacent like a colony in town. The
office of C.C.L. is situated there. The value of the land is Rs.3,500/- per
decimal. Haat is organized daily here. During cross-examination, he
admitted at Para-3 that the notification for acquisition of the land was
issued in the year 1980-81 and its possession was taken over in the year
1996. Parvati Devi has been paid compensation of Rs.81,000/- for her
land measuring 1 acre and 85 decimals and Chandmuni Devi has also
been paid same amount of compensation. He further admitted at Para-
4 that colliery is situated adjacent to Village- Pindra having 70-75
houses and all the lands were Dhani-Bari. He has not sold any land
himself. All the land were open for sale and no land of scheduled tribe
can be sold.
33. Applicant Witness No.3 (Parwati Devi) in her examination-in-
chief deposed that C.C.L. has acquired 01 acre 85 decimals of her land
alongwith the lands of Chandmuni. Baluhutu, Tapin and Parej Mouza
are situated adjacent to Mouza- Pindra. The colliery is running from
before. She further deposed that very less compensation has been given
for her land. Mahuwa and Sakhuwa trees were also standing over her
land. She is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.3,500/-. She used to get
the value of mahuwa @ Rs.4,000/- per tree per year. During cross-
examination, she admitted at Para-3 that she has received Rs.81,000/-
only. She used to grow paddy, potato, brinjal over her land and the road
was situated at a distance of 6-7 hands from her land and well, pond
and bari were situated before approaching the road. She stated at Para-
5 that the land situated near her land has been sold @ Rs.3,500/- and
Lakhan and Chhotka Manjhi had executed sale deed at Hazaribag. She
stated at Para-6 that 1,500 Mahuwa trees were standing over her land
apart from paddy fields, but she has not received any compensation for
the trees.
14
2026:JHHC:15302
34. Applicant Witness No.4 (Shanti Devi) in her examination-in-
chief deposed that their land has been acquired by the C.C.L., but very
less compensation has been paid to them. She further deposed that
Mouza Parej, Tapin and Baluhutu are situated near Pindra and
mines are running for a long period in those mouza. The value of
those lands would be at least Rs.3,500/- per decimal. She further stated
that kamliya, market, office, etc. are situated over her land and road is
also situated near the land. 500 old Mahuwa and Sakhuwa trees were
standing over her land. Her father had died. Chandmuni is her aunt and
her land of similar kind has also been acquired. During cross-
examination, she stated that C.C.L. has acquired 08 acres of her land
and she has received compensation for her land, but she has filed the
application for enhancing the compensation and she is entitled to get
compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per acre.
35. Applicant Witness No.5 (Meena Devi) in her examination-in-
chief deposed that her father and uncle had filed application for
enhancement of the compensation for the lands and they have died. She
further deposed that Mahuwa and Sakhuwa trees were standing over
their lands and their value was high. During cross-examination, she
stated that C.C.L. had acquired their lands. They are three sisters and
no brother. The names of her sisters are Shoni and Shanti. She is entitled
to get the enhanced compensation. She does not know as to how much
compensation was paid.
36. Applicant Witness No.6 (Chandmuni) in her examination-in-
chief deposed that C.C.L. has acquired her land for Pindra Colliery, but
she has received very less compensation with objection. Rs.3,000/- per
decimal would be the appropriate compensation. During cross-
examination, she stated at Para-2 that the compensation was prepared
in her name and she has received Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,600/-. She
further admitted at Para-3 that all the lands were measured in presence
of the villagers.
37. Applicant Witness No.7 (Pano Devi) in her examination-in-chief
deposed that C.C.L. has acquired her land, but she has received very
less compensation after death of her husband, which has been received
by her with objection. The compensation for the land should have been
15
2026:JHHC:15302
at least Rs.3,000/- per decimal. During cross-examination, she
admitted at Para-2 that no job has been given in lieu of the land. No
agriculture was done over the land, but she used to collect Mahuwa.
38. Applicant Witness No.1 (Ram Nandan Prasad) is sole witness in
Reference Case No. 01/1996. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed
that his land has been acquired by C.C.L., but he has received very less
compensation. The value of his land should have been Rs.10,000/- per
decimal. His land is flat and fertile. Pindra is situated adjacent to
Parej, Ghato, Phugu, Laiyo, etc. and all the places are connected to
road and have markets, colony, etc. in all the places. There were fruit
trees and Sakhuwa trees over his land and he used to sell Mahuwa of
Rs.300/- per year @ Rs.2-3/- per Kg. at that time. During cross-
examination, he admitted at Para-4 that he had received compensation
amount of Rs.1,93,000/- in the year 1996. He further admitted at Para-
6 that Patna-Ranchi Road is situated at a distance of 5 miles from Pindra
and he has not filed any sale deed or document in support of the value
of his land. There was no industry or trade in his village at the time of
acquisition of his land. Maize, corn and paddy were grown over his
land.
39. The applicants / claimants exhibited the following documents as
documentary evidence:
Exhibit-1 Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 31.03.1995
passed in Appeal arising out of Original Order
Nos.18-47/1993(R) relating to payment of
compensation of the lands of Village- Laiyo, P.S.-
Mandu, District- Hazaribag
Exhibit-1/A Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 01.03.1994
passed by the Tribunal under Coal Bearing Areas
(A&D) Act in 16 reference cases relating to the lands
of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar
Exhibit-2 Photocopy of map of Mandu Anchal showing Village-
Pindra in the vicinity of Village- Parej and Daru
Kashmar
40. The Union of India examined 4 witnesses who are common in all
the references cases. O.P.W.-1 (Animesh Chandra Acharya) filed his
16
2026:JHHC:15302
examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is working on the post
of Assistant Revenue Officer in the office of the Chief General
Manager, C.C.L. He further stated that approximately 535.70 acres of
land in Mouza- Pindra, Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag has been
acquired by C.C.L. for coal mining under Section 9(1) of the C.B.A.
Act vide Notification No.3687 dated 13.09.1983 by the Government of
India, which was published in the Gazette of Government of India on
01.10.1983. The Notification under Section 4(1) for the lands was
published by the Ministry of Power, New Delhi vide S.O. No.699 dated
13.01.1981 and the Notification under Section 7(1) for the acquired
lands was published by the Ministry of Power, New Delhi vide S.O.
No.1785 dated 28.04.1982. He further stated that the current status of
the land was assessed by the C.C.L. through appointed experts after
spot inspection and the trees and plants standing over the land was
assessed and the compensation was determined by the Government on
the basis of the prescribed rate and the compensation and the interest
on the basis of the payable interest was paid to the claimants. He further
stated that the rate for payment of compensation for the raiyati lands
was determined under the provisions of C.B.A. Act on the basis of the
sale and purchase documents available in the District Registry Office,
Hazaribag. Solatium @ 30%, additional compensation @ 12% and
interest @ 9 % for the first year under Section 9 of the Act and 15% per
year for rest of the period was paid apart from the compensation. The
acquired land was totally barren and infertile at the time of acquisition.
The acquired land falls under the area of coal mining. He further stated
that the claim of payment of less compensation of the claimants is
incorrect. He exhibited the Notification No.3687 dated 13.09.1983
under Section 9(1) of the Act as Exhibit-A, Notification No.699 dated
13.01.1981 under Section 4(1) of the Act as Exhibit-A/1 and
Notification No.1785 dated 28.04.1982 under Section 7(1) of the Act
as Exhibit-A/2. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-15 that
the land owners of Daru Kashmar and Parej have filed cases for
payment of appropriate compensation before the same tribunal. He
further admitted at Para-16 that he does not know as to whether the
Tribunal had determined the compensation @ Rs.72,700/- per acre on
17
2026:JHHC:15302
01.03.1995. He does not remember as to whether he had deposed in
Case Nos. 1 to 10 of 1994 and Case Nos. 115 to 120 of 1993. He also
admitted that he was not a part of the assessment team for the lands of
Pindra. He stated that it is not correct to say that Pindra, Daru Kashmar
and Parej are adjoining to each other.
41. O.P.W.-2 (Lal Keshwar Mahto) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he is working on the post of Assistant Revenue
Inspector in the office of the Chief General Manager, C.C.L. He further
stated that approximately 535.70 acres of land in Mouza- Pindra,
Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag has been acquired by C.C.L. for
coal mining. He further stated that the then status of the acquired land
was assessed by the C.C.L. through appointed experts after spot
inspection. He also stated that the rate for payment of compensation for
the raiyati lands was determined under the provisions of C.B.A. Act on
the basis of the sale and purchase documents available in the District
Registry Office, Hazaribag and the compensation alongwith interest,
additional interest, solation, etc. was paid as per law. The claimants
have been paid appropriate compensation alongwith job and their claim
of payment of less compensation is incorrect. As per LCR, order dated
16.09.2011, last chance was given to produce O.P.W.-2 (Lal Keshwar
Mahto) for cross-examination, but thereafter he never appeared for
cross-examination. On 28.03.2012, evidence on behalf of Opposite
Parties/ CCL/ Union of India was closed and the case was put up on
05.05.2012 for argument.
42. O.P.W.-3 (Bijay Kant Mishra) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he is working on the post of Senior Manager in the
office of the Chief General Manager, C.C.L. He further stated that
approximately 535.70 acres of land in Mouza- Pindra, Thana- Mandu,
District- Hazaribag has been acquired by C.C.L. for coal mining. He
further stated that the then status of the acquired land was assessed by
the C.C.L. through appointed experts after spot inspection. He also
stated that the rate for payment of compensation for the raiyati lands
was determined under the provisions of C.B.A. Act on the basis of the
sale and purchase documents available in the District Registry Office,
Hazaribag and the compensation alongwith interest, additional interest,
18
2026:JHHC:15302
solation, etc. was paid as per law. The claimants have been paid
appropriate compensation alongwith job and their claim of payment of
less compensation is incorrect. O.P.No.3 During cross-examination,
he admitted at Para-6 that the lands of Ichakdiha, Parej, Laiyo, Daru
Kashmar have also been acquired alongwith Pindra. He admitted at
Para-7 that 535.70 acres of lands of Pindra have been acquired for coal
and Kuju Colliery is situated at a distance of 15/20 Kilometres from
there and coal is transported everywhere from there. He admitted at
Para-8 & 9 that he has no role in determining the value of the lands of
Pindra and he does not know who has determined the compensation.
He also admitted that Para-10 & 11 that he has not seen any sale deed
of the village of the year 1982/83 and he cannot say which sale deed
was issued from the registry office. He admitted at Para-12 that apart
from the acquired lands, the land of Malana, Kedela, Ichakdiha,
Laiyo, Katyasi comes under the Bokaro West Colliery. Earlier it was
a private colliery and it was nationalised by the Government in the
year 1973. He said at Para-13 that he does not know that the Hon'ble
High Court has determined the compensation for the villages Ichakdiha
and Dakapaha as Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. He admitted at Para-14 that
the West Bokaro Coal Washery of Tata is situated near the acquired
lands. He also admitted at Para-15 that pucca road from Charhi to
Laiyo, water, electricity, etc. are available there. He admitted at Para-
16 that he is Senior Manager (Mining). He denied the suggestion at
Para-17 that the value of the lands has been determined very less.
43. O.P.W.-4 (Sunil Prasad Gupta) who was working in the office of
the General Manager, C.C.L filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit
stating that the suit lands have been acquired by the C.C.L. by
publishing notifications under Sections 4(1), 7(1) and 9(1) of the
C.B.A. Act. He exhibited the case records of the acquired lands as
under:
Reference Case No. Case Record No. Exhibit No.
48/1995 229 Exhibit-B
49/1995 231 Exhibit-B/1
50/1995 231 Exhibit-B/2
51/1995 231 Exhibit-B/3
19
2026:JHHC:15302
01/1996 230 Exhibit-B/4
He further stated that Khata, Plot, area, type of land, rate of
compensation, interest, additional interest, solatium and other benefits
are mentioned in the Compensation Report of the acquired lands. The
compensation rate has been determined as per the type of the land
which is mentioned in the proposal rate and rate approval document.
The compensation has been paid after determining the solatium of the
trees. All the provisions and rules have been complied with as per the
directions of Ministry of Coal, Government of India while determining
the compensation of the claimants. He exhibited the signatures of
competent officers of C.C.L. namely, Sri P.K. Sengupta, A.R.O, Sri
A.C. Acharya, A.R.O., Sri P.G.P. Nayar, Deputy C.R.O. as Exhibit-C.
He further stated that after issuance of the notification under Section 4
of the Act, the revenue karmachari and competent officers of C.C.L.
had made spot inspection and enquiry and had made classification of
the lands and thereafter, the compensation of the lands was determined
on the basis of the contemporary sale deeds and other documents
keeping the rules in mind, which is correct and sufficient. He stated that
on the days of notifications under Sections 4, 7 and 9, the acquired lands
were totally underdeveloped and unproductive. He further stated that
the compensation of the acquired lands was determined on the basis of
their types, use and the value of the land at the time of the notification.
The compensation, interest, additional interest, solatium, etc. have been
paid after compliance of all the benefits, which is sufficient and correct.
During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-8 that at the time of
deposing he was working on the post of Head Surveyor. At the time of
acquisition of the lands of Village-Pindra lands of Daru Kashmar,
Parej were also acquired , which are adjacent villages. He replied at
Para-9 that he does not know as to whether the land owners of Parej
and Daru Kashmar have filed compensation cases and as to whether the
learned court has determined the compensation of the lands of Mouza
Parej and Daru Kashmar as Rs.72,700/- per acre. He further stated at
Para-10 that he has seen the land of Pindra. He also stated at Para-11
that the Government has taken over the private collieries of Ara,
Hesagarh, Jharkhand, Kedla, Kuju Laiyo, Pindra, Minba, Sabudera,
20
2026:JHHC:15302
Deyra, Soyra and Topa, which are adjacent to Tata Colliery. He further
admitted at Para-12 that the lands were acquired for excavation and
selling of coal and the lands of Pindra were acquired for running mines.
Several tons of coal are transported outside from Kuju and Kuju is
situated adjacent to Pindra.
44. Accordingly, the Union of India exhibited the following
documents as documentary evidence:
Exhibit-A Notification No.3687 dated 13.09.1983 under
Section 9(1) of the Act
Exhibit-A/1 Notification No.699 dated 13.01.1981 under
Section 4(1) of the Act
Exhibit-A/2 Notification No.1785 dated 28.04.1982 under
Section 7(1) of the Act
Exhibit-B Case Record of Reference Case No. 48/1995
Exhibit-B/1 Case Record of Reference Case No. 49/1995
Exhibit-B/2 Case Record of Reference Case No. 50/1995
Exhibit-B/3 Case Record of Reference Case No. 51/1995
Exhibit-B/4 Case Record of Reference Case No. 01/1996
Exhibit-C Signatures of competent officers of C.C.L. in
Compensation Report of the acquired lands
Exhibit-D Record related to fixation of rate of compensation
of Village- Pindra
45. This court finds that the following facts are not in dispute which
have also been recorded by the learned tribunal: -
a. The learned Tribunal took Point Nos. (1) & (2) together
for decision Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published in the official Gazette vide S.O. No.699 dated
13.01.1981 through which the lands related to Village-
Pindra alongwith lands of other villages were acquired
(Exhibit-A/1).
b. The Notification under Section 7(1) of the Act was
published vide S.O. No.1785 dated 28.04.1982 (Exhibit-
A/2).
c. Notification under Section 9(1) of the Act vide S.O. No.
3687 dated 13.09.1983 was published in the official
Gazette of India on 01.10.1983 (Exhibit-A) whereby the
21
2026:JHHC:15302
lands related to Village- Pindra in respect to the reference
cases alongwith other lands were acquired.
d. The lands related to Plot Nos. 3 to 79, 80(Part), 81(Part),
82(Part), 83(Part), 84(Part), 85 (Part), 86(Part), 87(Part)
and 104(Part), total area 535.70 acres of Village- Pindra
were acquired alongwith trees standing thereon.
e. The rate of lands was fixed according to their classification
(Exhibit-D) which are as follow:-
Paddy-I @ Rs.21,340/- per acre
Paddy-II @ Rs.13,340/- per acre
Paddy-III @ Rs.10,670/- per acre
Tanr-I @ Rs.21,340/- per acre
Tanr-II @ Rs.5,340/- per acre
Tanr-III @ Rs.1,340/- per acre
Others @Rs.670/- per acre
f. In addition to the rates mentioned above, solatium @ 30%
on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @ 15%
for the subsequent years has also been paid to the
claimants on the rates as indicated above and additional
compensation as escalation @ 12% per annum for the
period from the date of publication of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the Act has
been awarded on the rate of compensation (Exhibit-C).
g. Right, title and interest of the claimants is not in dispute.
h. All the claimants have received payment of compensation
with protest.
46. After having received the compensation with solatium, interest
and escalation as mentioned above, as offered under protest, the
claimants filed petition seeking enhancement of compensation and
impugned judgement and award has been passed. The operative portion
of the impugned is quoted as under:-
ORDER
“These Reference cases are hereby disposed of on contest.
Prevailing market price of the land under acquisition in
question is determined and fixed at the flat rate of Rs.600/- per
decimal. Claimants are also entitled to solatium @ 30%,
escalation @ 12% for the period from the date of publication
of notification U/s 4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act, interest
@ 9% for the first year and 15% per year for rest of the period
only on the enhanced amount of compensation. O.P. is
22
2026:JHHC:15302
directed to pay the balance of the compensation amount within
three months from the date of this order. Let award be
prepared accordingly.”
Whether, the learned tribunal erred in law in awarding additional
compensation although no additional compensation has been
awarded by the impugned judgement and the claim for additional
compensation has been earlier rejected vide order dated 19.06.2018
by the learned trial court under Section 23-(1-A) and Section 23(2) of
the Land Acquisition Act?
And
Whether, the learned tribunal erred in awarding interest and it ought
to have been awarded from the year 1996 as the claimants have also
allegedly deposed that they were dispossessed in 1996?
47. This court finds that the learned tribunal has determined the
compensation of land at flat rate of Rs. 600/- per decimal and so far as
solatium, escalation, interest are concerned, the same has been awarded
only on differential court consequent upon enhancement of the rate of
compensation. The award drawn pursuant to the impugned award
reveals that instead of terming the escalation for the period from
notification u/s 4 to notification u/s 9 for the period from 13.01.1981 to
13.09.1983 the award has used a wrong terminology terming it has
additional compensation although admittedly the impugned judgement
does not allow additional compensation. Further, this Court also finds
that there is no separate calculation for escalation on differential amount
as directed by the impugned judgement. In the aforesaid view of the
matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that
additional compensation has been paid although there is no direction to
pay additional compensation. The terminology used while preparation
of the award, additional compensation on differential amount instead of
escalation on differential amount has no bearing in the matter. Wrong
use of terminology in the award having no impact on the awarded
amount has no bearing in the matter. The term additional compensation
on differential amount in the award it to be taken as escalation amount
on differential amount. The fact that the claimants are entitled to
escalation on differential amount is not in dispute.
23
2026:JHHC:15302
48. Further, in the judgement passed by this court reported in 2005
SCC OnLine Jhar 44: (2005) 1 JLJR 439 (Union of India v. Harla
Devi), paragraph 16 it has been held by referring to the letter No.
43026-88-LSW, dated 12.5.89 of the Government of India, Deptt. of
Coal, -Ministry of Energy, addressed to the Chairman, Coal India Ltd.
that it contains a decision in respect of payment of solatium, interest
and additional compensation. It has been held in the said judgement that
so far payment of solatium and interest at the enhanced rates is
concerned, the same is without any ‘ifs’ or ‘but’ and are made
admissible in respect of all acquisition made under the C.B.A. Act. But
so far payment of additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per
annum is concerned, the same would be admissible in cases of
acquisitions made under the C.B.A. Act, only where the notification
under Section 9(1) of the said Act, has been issued on or after 30.4.82.
As regards payment of the solatium and interest it has been observed as
follows:
(a) Solatium, in addition to market value of the land at
the rate of 30 per cent of the market value for all
acquisitions made under the C.B.A. Act.
(b) An interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for
the first year and 15 per cent per annum for the
subsequent years on the amount of compensation,
including solatium, so calculated for payment of the
land owner.
49. In the present cases notification under section 9 (1) has been
issued after 30.04.1982 and hence the additional compensation by way
of escalation is payable @ 12% per annum which has been included in
the impugned judgement and award. The impugned judgement uses the
term escalation and the award uses the term additional compensation
but there is no difference in the calculation @ 12% per annum. Further,
perusal of order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned court during
the pendency of these appeals reveals that it has been observed that the
matters are pending before this court and the point may be raised before
this court.
50. Upon going through the aforesaid judgement reported in 2005
SCC OnLine Jhar 44: (2005) 1 JLJR 439 (Union of India v. Harla
24
2026:JHHC:15302
Devi), paragraph 16, there is no doubt that the claimants are entitled to
solatium, interest and also additional compensation as awarded by the
learned court but the term escalation has been used in the impugned
judgement and work additional compensation has been used in the
award making no difference in calculation.
51. The aforesaid point regarding additional compensation/
escalation is accordingly decided against the appellant and in favour
of the claimants.
52. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that even the appellants,
while paying compensation to the claimants prior to reference, which
the claimants received under protest, additionally paid solatium @ 30%
on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @ 15% for the
subsequent years to the claimants and additional compensation as
escalation @ 12% per annum for the period from the date of publication
of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the
Act has been paid on the rate of compensation assessed for the land at
their end. The learned tribunal by the impugned judgement has awarded
solatium @ 30% on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @
15% for the subsequent years to the claimants and escalation @ 12%
per annum for the period from the date of publication of notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the Act only on the
differential amount arising out of the enhanced rate of Compensation
Rs.600/- per decimal. In their entire written statement filed before the
learned tribunal, it was not their case that they have wrongly paid
solatium @ 30% on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @
15% for the subsequent years to the claimants and additional
compensation as escalation @ 12% per annum for the period from the
date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to under
Section 9 of the Act and thus, it was not their case that even the interest
already calculated and paid prior to reference suffered from any
illegality with reference to the date of dispossession of the claimants.
The learned tribunal has simply enhanced the rate of compensation for
the land and did not interfere with any other component except that
solatium, escalation and interest have to be paid also on differential
amount for compensation of land. Once the payment of solatium,
25
2026:JHHC:15302
escalation and interest has been accepted and paid prior to reference, it
is not open to the appellant to contend, without any foundational
pleadings, that the claimants having been dispossessed in the year 1996
the interest etc has to be paid from 1996 only.
53. This is over and above the letter no. 43026-88-LSW, dated
12.05.89 of the Government of India, Deptt. of Coal, Ministry of
Energy, addressed to the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. that a decision has
been taken in respect of payment of solatium, interest and additional
compensation and it has been held in the aforesaid judgement that so
far payment of solatium and interest at the enhanced rates is concerned,
the same is without any ‘ifs’ or ‘but’ and are made admissible in respect
of all acquisition made under the C.B.A. Act. But, so far payment of
additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is
concerned, the same would be admissible in cases of acquisitions made
under the C.B.A. Act, only where the notification under Section 9(1) of
the said Act, has been issued on or after 30.4.82.
54. The award of interest, solatium and escalation/additional
compensation is in accordance with the aforesaid judgement read with
the circular issued by the central government in the year 1989 as
discussed and held in the aforesaid judgement reported in 2005 SCC
OnLine Jhar 44: (2005) 1 JLJR 439 (Union of India v. Harla Devi).
55. Moreover, the parties also did not join issues with respect to the
date of dispossession of the claimants. The parties contested the case on
the rate of compensation for acquired land and trees, the compensation
for land was enhanced on the basis of materials placed on record and
there was no enhancement with respect to compensation for the trees
and as a natural corollary to enhancement in the rate of land the
claimants were entitled to solatium, escalation and interest on the
differential amount as has been directed by the learned tribunal by the
impugned judgement. Accordingly, it is held that the award of solatium,
escalation and interest on the differential amount arising out of
enhancement of rate of compensation for land does not call for any
interference. The point for determination on award of interest on
differential compensation is accordingly decided against the
appellant and in favour of the claimants.
26
2026:JHHC:15302
Whether the impugned judgement enhancing the compensation for
acquired land at flat rate of Rs.600/- per decimal call for any
interference?
And
Whether the appellants are entitled to deduction on account of
development cost with respect to the acquired lands of village Pindra?
56. This Court finds that it is not in dispute from the oral and
documentary evidences placed on record including the map of Mandu
Block Ramgarh District that lands of Mouza Pindra, Tiping, Parej Daru-
Kashmar, and other villages were acquired by the same process by
issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act and the map reveals that
the Mouza Pindra, Tiping, Parej and Daru Kashmar and Laiyo they fall
one after another and touching boundaries. The records further reveal
that the land in village Laiyo was acquired prior in the year 1980 under
the same Act of 1957. The extract of the map of Mandu Block (Exhibit-
2) is as under: –
57. The claimants in the present cases are from village Pindra and
they received the compensation on account of land and trees standing
thereon under protest with solatium, escalation and interest and
thereafter, the reference cases were instituted seeking enhancement of
compensation on land and also trees. They claimed compensation @
Rs. 10,000/- per decimal and in their deposition, they stated that the rate
for compensation of acquired land should be @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal.
The claimants led oral evidence with respect to the market value of the
acquired properties, but not even a single sale deed was exhibited from
their side. Further, even the appellants here in, who were opposite party
before the learned tribunal, did not produce any sale although, in their
27
2026:JHHC:15302
evidence they asserted that while fixing the compensation, the market
value of the acquired property was assessed on the basis of sale deeds
from registry office. Further, the Exhibit-D, which is the only document
produced by the appellant (CCL) showing assessment of rate of
acquired land also did not refer to any sale deed or any information
received from registry office or even the circle rate, but simply referred
to the classification of land under Dhan-I, Dhan-II, Dhan-III, Tanr-I,
Tanr-II and Tanr-III and others and rate for compensation against each
head, but nothing was mentioned as to from where the rates were
derived. Further, no material was placed on record to show as to which
of the acquired properties were of one or the other category. It was also
observed in Exhibit-D that the additional compensation in the form of
escalation, solatium and interest will be added to the rate of
compensation. It is also important to note that the Exhibit-D was placed
on record before the learned tribunal only at the time of arguments of
the case.
58. This Court further finds that on the one hand no sale deeds were
produced by either party to show exemplar sales for the purpose of
compensation for acquired land and it has been argued by the learned
counsel for the appellants that in order to claim higher compensation, it
was for the claimants to place on record appropriate materials and the
onus was upon the claimants.
59. It is true that the claimants failed to produce any sale deed for
comparison with respect to the acquired land of the same mouza or in
the vicinity of the mouza. However, they exhibited two judgments with
respect to acquisition of villages contiguous to the acquired land and
Exhibit-1/A was arising out of the same process of acquisition as
involved in this case : –
Exhibit-1 Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 31.03.1995
passed in Appeal arising out of Original Order
Nos.18-47/1993(R) relating to payment of
compensation of the lands of Village- Laiyo, P.S.-
Mandu, District- Hazaribag
Exhibit-1/A Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 01.03.1994
passed by the Tribunal under Coal Bearing Areas28
2026:JHHC:15302(A&D) Act in 16 reference cases relating to the lands
of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar
60. Thus, it cannot be said that no materials were placed on record
by the claimants to seek enhancement of compensation for the acquired
land. The Exhibits 1 and 1/A were put to the witnesses of the appellant
during cross examination to which they were completely silent/
expressed that they are not aware although they were the acquirer in all
the cases including the present one.
61. So far as village Laiyo (Exhibit-1) is concerned, the lands were
acquired in 1980 vide notification published in the gazette on
01.03.1980 under section 4 which is prior to the acquisition in the
present case which is dated 13.01.1981 under Section 4. So far as
acquisition of land for the village Parej and Daru Kashmar are
concerned the same were arising out of the same notification for
acquisition as involved in the present cases.
62. In the aforesaid two exhibits, Exhibit 1 and 1/A , numerous sale
deeds were exhibited. For village Laiyo, the compensation was fixed by
the learned tribunal at flat rate of Rs.1200/- per decimal which was
under challenge before this court. Vide Exhibit-1 passed by this Court
for village Laiyo, the compensation at flat rate was upheld by observing
that the acquirer had failed to substantiate different classes of land
acquired and nothing was brought on record to prove the fact that the
lands acquired in village Laiyo were of different classes and did not
possess similar potentialities. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and numerous sale deeds produced for
consideration, the compensation at flat rate of Rs. 1200/- per decimal as
fixed by tribunal was reduced to Rs.600/- per decimal and the judgment
and award were modified to that extent. The findings in paragraph 28
and 29 with respect to village Laiyo as decided by this Court reducing
compensation at flat rate of Rs. 1200/- per decimal to Rs. 600/- per
decimal is quoted as under:-
“28. The acquirer has failed to substantiate different classes of
lands acquired and nothing has been brought on record to prove
the fact that the lands acquired in village Laiyo were of different29
2026:JHHC:15302classes and did not possess similar potentiality and, therefore, in
my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in fixing compensation at a
flat rate for the entire acquired lands.
29. In the aforesaid circumstances, the compensation fixed at the
flat rate of Rs.1200/- year decimal by the Tribunal is reduced to
Rs.600/- per decimal and the impugned judgement and award are
modified to this extent only.”
63. This Court finds that in the present case also the appellant herein
neither placed on record any material to substantiate different classes of
land were acquired and that the lands acquired did not possess similar
potentialities. It is common case with respect to the acquired land of
concerned villages that the land was falling in the vicinity of collieries
and in the present case a haat was also been organized since much prior
to acquisition of land.
64. In such circumstances, this Court is also of the considered view
that the tribunal was justified in fixing compensation at the flat rate for
the entire acquired land for village Pindra at flat rate which is involved
in this case.
65. This Court finds that the learned tribunal while fixing the rate of
compensation has followed the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court
in Appeal No. 18 to 47 of 1993 (R) [Exhibit-1] with respect to village
Laiyo and fixed the compensation @ Rs.600/ per decimal as the High
Court had reduced the compensation for village Laiyo in the aforesaid
manner. It is important to note that the learned tribunal did not consider
the Exhibit-1/A where the compensation at flat rate was fixed @
Rs.727/- per decimal with deduction of 20% as development cost with
respect to village Parej and Daru Kashmar primarily on the ground that
it was not clear as to whether the same has been challenged in the High
court.
66. The learned tribunal also granted solatium, interest and
escalation on the differential amount of compensation as the same was
already paid with respect to the assessed amount by the concerned
authority.
67. During the course of hearing, it has come to light and judgment
of the tribunal passed in the case of Parej and Daru Kahsmar (exhibit-
30
2026:JHHC:15302
1/A) was subject matter of appeal before this Court in the Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 50 of 1995 and another analogous cases which was decided
vide judgment dated 10.11.2004 and ultimately this Court reduced the
compensation over land from Rs.727/- per decimal with deduction on
account of development charges @20% to Rs.600/- per decimal with
deduction on account of development charges @20%. The said
judgment was subject matter of consideration in L.P.A no. 2 of 2005
and other analogous cases in appeals filed by the Union of India through
CCL whereby this Court upheld the award on account of solatium to be
paid @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15%
per annum for the subsequent year till actual payment and the appeal
was dismissed. The judgement of the LPA reveals that there was no
challenge to the flat rate of compensation @ 600/- per decimal.
68. This Court finds that the facts and circumstances of the present
case with respect to fixation of rate of compensation @ Rs.600/- per
decimal is similar to that of Laiyo and also that of village Daru Kashmar
and Parej, except that village Laiyo was acquired one year prior to the
acquisition of land involved in this case. So far as village Parej and
Daru Kasmar are concerned they were acquired through the same
notifications and process involved in the present cases whereby the
compensation at flat rate has been upheld. For village Laiyo and also
for village Daru Kashmar and Parej the rate of compensation for land
has been fixed @ Rs.600/- per decimal, but in villages Daru Kashmar
and Parej deduction on account of development cost has been allowed
by 20%.
69. This Court is of the considered view that there is no reason to
take a different view than what has been taken by learned tribunal in the
present case while passing the impugned judgment so far as the rate of
compensation for land @ Rs.600/- is concerned.
70. This Court is of the considered view that the judgments which
have been passed with respect to adjoining villages and acquired by the
same process are certainly important materials placed before the court
for consideration in the circumstances where the sale deed of the
concerned village has not been placed on record from either side and
the compensation awarded was not substantiated by CCL through any
31
2026:JHHC:15302
cogent material placed on record although they claimed in their
evidence that they had examined and fixed compensation on the basis
of sale deeds from the registry office, but neither any such sale deed has
been produced nor the materials has been on record to show that any
such sale deed were taken into consideration. Even the Exhibit-D does
not show as to how the compensation was fixed and there is no materials
on record with respect to the classification of land.
71. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment
passed by the learned tribunal fixing the compensation @Rs.600/- per
decimal flat rate with respect to village Pindra is a well reasoned
judgment and does not call for any interference.
72. So far as the claim of deduction on account of development cost
is concerned, this Court finds that with respect to village Laiyo, the
concerned tribunal had not made any deduction on account of
development charges. However, with respect to village Parej and Daru
Kashmar, a deduction was made by the learned tribunal itself with
respect to development charges to the extent of 20% and such deduction
was not interfered with by this Court in appeal and this Court, except
reducing the compensation from Rs.727/- to Rs.600/- per decimal, did
not interfere with the award of the learned tribunal.
73. The judgment which has been relied upon by the appellants with
respect to deduction on account of development charges clearly
revealed that there can be no automatic deduction on account of
development charges and it varies from one case to another case
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and materials
placed on record. In the present case, no iota of evidence/material has
placed on record to claim any deduction on account of development
charges much less deduction to the extent of 20%. In the present case,
the lands with trees were acquired for the purpose of extraction of coal
and no material has been placed on record by the appellants, either
before the learned tribunal or before this Court, to claim any
development charges or to claim that any development of acquired land
was required. The land acquired for extraction of coal is essentially for
mining purposes and with respect to the village Pindra, no such claim
of deduction was ever made before the tribunal and no material has been
32
2026:JHHC:15302
placed to claim a deduction on account of development charges. Even
the concerned authorities while computing the compensation had not
made any deduction on account of development charges.
74. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants claiming
deduction charges from the rate of compensation of land is completely
misplaced and is not based on any material/evidence placed on record.
75. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mala and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2023) 9 SCC
315: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663, the principles with regards deduction on
account of development cost has been considered. It was argued before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is well-settled position of law that
while determining the deduction for development charges, the courts
should keep in mind the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether
the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, the purpose of
acquisition, etc. Though, it is true that while determining the market
value of large chunk of land, the value of smaller pieces of land could
be taken into consideration, however, after making appropriate
deduction in the value of lands or setting apart land required for carving
out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, etc. The
percentage of deduction or the extent of area required to be set apart has
to be assessed by the courts having regard to the size, shape, situation,
user, etc. of the lands acquired. It is essentially a kind of guess work the
courts are expected to undertake.
76. The Hon’ble Supreme court referred to various judgements on
the point of deduction of development cost as follows: –
15. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO, (1988) 3 SCC 751,
this Court held as under:
“8. … The first two grounds are devoid of merit. It is
common knowledge that when a large block of land is
required to be valued, appropriate deduction has to be
made for setting aside land for carving out roads,
leaving open spaces, and plotting out smaller plots
suitable for construction of buildings. The extent of the
area required to be set apart in this connection has to
be assessed by the court having regard to the shape,
size and situation of the concerned block of land, etc.
There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how much
deduction should be made to account for this factor. It33
2026:JHHC:15302is essentially a question of fact depending on the facts
and circumstances of each case. It does not involve
drawing upon any principle of law.”
16. In Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769,
this Court held that:
“14. The “deduction for development” consists of two
components. The first is with reference to the area
required to be utilised for developmental works and the
second is the cost of the development works. For
example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or
similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40%
of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks,
playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities),
etc.
15. The development authority will also incur
considerable expenditure for development of
undeveloped land into a developed layout, which
includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing
roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities,
laying water lines, electricity lines and developing
parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35%
of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken
together would be the “deduction for development” and
can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the
developed plot.
16-21***
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory
development authorities may have large areas
earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water
tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the
usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks,
playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The
purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that
the “deduction for development” factor is a variable
percentage and the range of percentage itself being
very wide from 20% to 75%.”
17. This Court in the judgment in Kasturi v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 held that there may be various
factual factors which may have to be taken into
consideration while applying the cut in payment of
compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in
some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than
1/3rd. This Court held as under :
“7. … However, in cases of some land where there are
certain advantages by virtue of the developed area
around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to
be applied, as the developmental charges required may
be less on that account. There may be various factual
factors which may have to be taken into consideration
while applying the cut in payment of compensation34
2026:JHHC:15302towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases
it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd.
It must be remembered that there is difference between
a developed area and an area having potential value,
which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is
developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso
facto make every land situated in the area also
developed to be valued as a building site or plot,
particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this
case, for development purpose.”
77. The aforesaid judgements clearly reveal that in order to claim
development cost there has to be some material relating to the
development of the acquired land by the acquirer. It has been held that
the “deduction for development” consists of two components. The first
is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental
works and the second is the cost of the development works. For
example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory
authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for
roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community
facilities), etc.
78. In the present case, the land having been acquired for mining of
coal and there is no evidence or even a statement as to what
development is required to be made for the acquired land, the arguments
of the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be some
deduction on account of development cost. The question of deduction
on account of development cost through guess work arises only when
there is some evidence on the point of required development of the
acquired land and in absence of any material, no deduction on account
of development cost can be made. Thus, the learned tribunal has rightly
not granted any deduction on account of development cost. In fact,
deduction on account of development cost was neither claimed nor any
material was produced to substantiate the claim of deduction on account
of development cost. The appellant is not entitled to any deduction on
account of development cost. Thus, is held that the compensation for
the acquired Land Rs.600/- per decimal dies not call for any interference
and the appellant is not entitled to any deduction on account of
development cost in the absence of any material that development of
35
2026:JHHC:15302
the acquired land for coal mining, much less nature of development of
the land, was required.
79. The compensation for acquired land as enhanced by the learned
tribunal to Rs.600/- per decimal and other components with regards to
Solatium, Escalation, Interest on differential amount does not call for
any interference.
80. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
81. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
82. Let this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court
through “Fax/E-mail”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
19.05.2026
Binit /Rakesh
Uploaded on:- 20.05.2026
36
