Jharkhand High Court
Chief Project Manager vs Saraswati Devi on 30 March, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:9006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 52 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 7 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 9 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 10 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 11 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 12 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 13 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 14 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 15 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 16 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 17 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 18 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 19 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 20 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 21 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 23 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 25 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 26 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 27 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 28 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 31 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 32 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 34 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 35 of 2026
With
2026:JHHC:9006
F.A. No. 36 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 38 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 39 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 42 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 43 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 46 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 48 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 50 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 51 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 53 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 54 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 56 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 57 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 59 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 60 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 62 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 63 of 2026
Chief Project Manager, NTPC Ltd., Keredari Coal Mining Project,
officiating from his office at Keredari, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist -
Hazaribagh and filing this appeal through its authorised representative
namely Dilip Kumar (currently discharging his duties as Senior
Manager, (Land Acquisition), NTPC), aged about 50 years, S/o
Mahesh Prasad having his residence at Julu Park, P.O. and P.S.
Hazaribagh, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...... Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
2. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
2
2026:JHHC:9006
3. Gopal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
4. Ramsawrup Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
5. Sanjay Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
6. Bhupal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
7. Manoj Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
8. Devpal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
...Applicants/ Respondents
9. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh officiating from his office
at O/o of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
10. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at
DLAO, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Party No. 1 and 3/ Performa Respondents
With
F.A. No. 8 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 49 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 58 of 2026
The Chief Project Manager, NTPC Ltd., Keredari Coal Mining
Project, officiating from his office at Keredari, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh and filing this appeal through its
authorised representative namely Dilip Kumar (currently
discharging his duties as Senior Manager, (Land Acquisition),
NTPC), aged about 50 years, S/o Mahesh Prasad having his
residence at Julu Park, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh.
...... Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant
Versus
3
2026:JHHC:9006
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
2. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...Applicants/ Respondents
3. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh officiating from his office
at O/o of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
4. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at
DLAO, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Party No. 1 and 3/ Performa Respondents
With
F.A. No. 41 of 2026
Chief Project Manager, NTPC Ltd., Keredari Coal Mining
Project, officiating from his office at Keredari, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh and filing this appeal through its
authorised representative namely Dilip Kumar (currently
discharging his duties as Senior Manager, (Land Acquisition),
NTPC), aged about 50 years, S/o Mahesh Prasad having his
residence at Julu Park, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh.
...... Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about not
known to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
2. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
3. Manoj Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
4. Ramsawrup Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
5. Sanjay Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
...Applicants/ Respondents
6. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh officiating from his office
at O/o of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
4
2026:JHHC:9006
7. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at
DLAO, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Party No. 1 and 3/ Performa Respondents
With
F.A. No. 29 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 33 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 44 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 45 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 55 of 2026
Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari Coal Mining Project,
officiating from his office at Keredari, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist -
Hazaribagh and filing this appeal through its authorised representative
namely Dilip Kumar (currently discharging his duties as Senior
Manager, (Land Acquisition), NTPC), aged about 50 years, S/o
Mahesh Prasad having his residence at Julu Park, P.O. and P.S.
Hazaribagh, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...... Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
2. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
3. Gopal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
4. Ramsawrup Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
5. Sanjay Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
6. Manoj Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
7. Devpal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not known
to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
...Applicants/ Respondents
5
2026:JHHC:9006
8. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh officiating from his office
at O/o of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
9. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at
DLAO, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Party No. 1 and 3/ Performa Respondents
With
F.A. No. 37 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 47 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 61 of 2026
Chief Project Manager, NTPC Ltd., Keredari Coal Mining Project,
officiating from his office at Keredari, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist -
Hazaribagh and filing this appeal through its authorised representative
namely Dilip Kumar (currently discharging his duties as Senior
Manager, (Land Acquisition), NTPC), aged about 50 years, S/o
Mahesh Prasad having his residence at Julu Park, P.O. and P.S.
Hazaribagh, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...... Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...Applicant/ Respondent
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh officiating from his office at
O/o of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at
DLAO, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
.... Opposite Party No. 1 and 3/ Performa Respondents
With
F.A. No. 22 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 24 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 30 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 40 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 64 of 2026
6
2026:JHHC:9006
Chief Project Manager, NTPC Ltd., Keredari Coal Mining Project,
officiating from his office at Keredari, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist -
Hazaribagh and filing this appeal through its authorised representative
namely Dilip Kumar (currently discharging his duties as Senior
Manager, (Land Acquisition), NTPC), aged about 50 years, S/o
Mahesh Prasad having his residence at Julu Park, P.O. and P.S.
Hazaribagh, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...... Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the Appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...Applicant/ Respondent
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at
O/o of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari,
Dist- Hazaribagh.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at DLAO,
Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Party No. 1 and 3/ Performa Respondents
With
F.A. No. 65 of 2026
1. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, officiating from his office at Keredari, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh and filing this appeal through its
authorized representative namely Dilip Kumar (currently
discharging his duties as Senior Manager, (Land Acquisition),
NTPC), aged about 50 years, S/o Mahesh Prasad having his
residence at Julu Park, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh.
...... Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Ramswarup Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about not
known to the appellant, R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
...Applicant/ Respondent
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh officiating from his office
at O/o of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.
Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, officiating from his office at
DLAO, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist- Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Party No. 1 and 3/ Performa Respondent
7
2026:JHHC:9006
With
F.A. No. 147 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 154 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 165 of 2026
1. Saraswati Devi W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about 56
years, R/o Village- Tarhesa, P.O.- Pandu, P.S.- Keredari,
District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
..... Petitioner / Appellant
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.and Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
....Opposite Parties / Respondents
With
F.A. No. 150 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 152 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 153 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 162 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 190 of 2026
1. Krishnadev Ojha S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 64
years, R/o Village- Tarhesa, P.O.- Pandu, P.S.- Keredari,
District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
..... Petitioner / Appellant
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. and
Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
....Opposite Parties / Respondents
8
2026:JHHC:9006
With
F.A. No. 151 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 155 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 157 of 2026
1. Saraswati Devi W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about 56
years,
2. Krishnadeo Ojha S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 64
years,
All R/o Village- Tarhesa, P.O.- Pandu, P.S.- Keredari, District-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
..... Petitioners / Appellants
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.and Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
....Opposite Parties / Respondents
F.A. No. 78 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 107 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 134 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 135 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 136 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 137 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 138 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 139 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 140 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 141 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 143 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 144 of 2026
With
9
2026:JHHC:9006
F.A. No. 145 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 146 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 148 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 149 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 156 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 158 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 160 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 161 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 163 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 166 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 167 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 168 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 169 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 170 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 171 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 172 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 173 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 175 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 176 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 178 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 180 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 181 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 182 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 183 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 184 of 2026
With
10
2026:JHHC:9006
F.A. No. 185 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 186 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 188 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 189 of 2026
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about 56
years.
2. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged 64 years.
3. Gopal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 58 years.
4. Ramsawrup Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 57
years.
5. Sanjay Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 56 years.
6. Bhupal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 53years.
7. Manoj Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 50 years.
8. Devpal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 48 years.
All R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O.- Pandu, P.S. Keredari, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
..... Petitioners / Appellants
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. and
Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
....Opposite Parties / Respondents
With
F.A. No. 142 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 159 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 164 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 177 of 2026
With
F.A. No. 187 of 2026
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about 56
years.
2. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged 64 years.
3. Gopal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 58 years.
4. Ramsawrup Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 57
years.
11
2026:JHHC:9006
5. Sanjay Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 56 years.
6. Manoj Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 50 years.
7. Devpal Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 48 years.
All R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O.- Pandu, P.S. Keredari, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
..... Petitioners / Appellants
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. and
Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
....Opposite Parties / Respondents
With
F.A. No. 174 of 2026
1. Ramsawrup Ojha S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 57
years, R/o Village- Tarhesa, P.O.- Pandu, P.S.- Keredari,
District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
..... Petitioner / Appellant
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. and
Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
....Opposite Parties / Respondents
With
F.A. No. 179 of 2026
1. Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Satyanarayan Ojha, aged about 56
years.
2. Krishnadeo Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged 64 years.
3. Ramsawrup Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 57
years.
4. Sanjay Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 56 years.
5. Manoj Ojha, S/o Late Rameshwar Ojha, aged about 50 years.
All R/o Village - Tarhesa, P.O.- Pandu, P.S. Keredari, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
..... Petitioners / Appellants
Versus
12
2026:JHHC:9006
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.and Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Chief Project Manager, NTPC Limited, Keredari, Coal Mining
Project, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, Dist - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. District Competent Authority- cum- District Land Acquisition
Officer (DLAO), Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
....Opposite Parties / Respondents
---
CORAM :HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the NTPC Limited : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
: Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
: Ms. Shreya Shukla, Advocate
For the Claimants : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate
: Mrs. Akata Anand, Advocate
: Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Rai, Advocate
: Ms. Sneha Sonam, Advocate
: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sahbaj Aktar, AC to AAG-III
: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AC to GA-I
: Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, AC to GP III
: Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I
: Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV
: Mr. Kanishka Deo, AC to GP IV
—
C.A.V. On 16.03.2026 Pronounced On 30.03.2026
1. This batch of 118 first appeals arise out of common judgment
dated 30.11.2024 wherein different Land Reference cases have been
decided. The acquired land involved in these cases are of village
Tarhesa, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand which have been acquired
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 2013) for NTPC limited. Total area of
acquired land is 84.80 acres of raiyati land. There are 59 Land
Reference cases involved in this batch of cases arising out of Land
13
2026:JHHC:9006
Reference Case No. 495 of 2022 to 540 of 2022 and Land Reference
Case Nos. 555 of 2022 to 567 of 2022 arising out of the same
Reference under section 64 of the aforesaid Act of 2013.
2. The District Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation
at flat rate of Rs. 4,823/- per decimal. As the claimants were
dissatisfied with the rate of compensation, reference was made to the
learned court under section 64 of the aforesaid Act of 2013 on 21 st
May, 2022. By the impugned judgment, the compensation has been
enhanced from Rs. 4823/- per decimal to Rs. 11,000/- per decimal.
Both the parties, the claimants as well as NTPC Limited, are
aggrieved by the impugned judgment. 59 cases have been filed by
NTPC Limited and 59 cases have been filed by the claimants.
The trial court’s judgement.
3. The learned trial court framed the point for determination as
under: – “whether the compensation awarded to the petitioners
should be enhanced?”
The relevant findings of the learned trial court are as under: –
“15. Heard the argument of both the sides. In the light of
argument, perused the entire materials available on record
in which, I find that, P.W. 1 is Ramswarup Ojha. He is also
applicant in L.A. Case no. 495/2022. In his cross-
examination at para 26 he has stated that, the
compensation for the acquired land was fixed by the
government at the rate of Rs.4823/- per decimal. The land
was acquired in the year 2019. The rate fixed by the
government was based on the government rate of purchase
and sale of land at that time. At para 48 he has stated that,
he had given compensation at the said rate, but he had
demanded @ Rs.20,000/- per decimal. P.W.2 is Manoj
Kumar Ojha. He is also one of the applicant. In cross-
examination at para 24, he has stated that, land was
acquired by the government in the year 2019 and at that
time, the government rate of the land of Tarhesa village
was Rs.20,000/- per decimal, but he has not filed the paper
of fixed government rate in the court. At para 39 he has
stated that, some money has already been taken from the
government for the land for which this case has been
lodged to increase the rate. At para 48, he has stated that,
the land that has been acquired is of both residential and14
2026:JHHC:9006agricultural type. P.W. 3 is Pankaj Lal Jaiswal. In cross-
examination at para 15 he has stated that, he has
purchased the land in village Tarhesa @ Rs.25,000/- per
decimal and he can file the deed of the land. The nature of
land acquired in village Tarhesa is Tand no.1 and not
residential. I find that, sixteen sale deeds have been proved
on behalf of the petitioners……………………………………..
I further find that, five documents have been proved on
behalf of the opp. parties. Ext. A is Attested copy of order-
sheet of L.A. Case no.01/2016-17, Ext. B is Attested copy
of sale figure chart, Ext. C is Attested copy of estimate,
Ext. D is Attested copy of rate report, Ext. E is Attested
copy of valuation Khatiyan and Ext. F is Attested copy of
Notification no.562/LA, dt. 07.06.2019. In all the sale
deeds filed on behalf of the petitioners except land of sale
deed (exhibit 1/2 and 1/3), type of land is residential. The
land of Ext.-1/2 and 1/3 is agricultural type which is of
village Jamira, adjacent to village Tarhesa. The rate of
land of Ext. 1/2 is Rs. 33,794/- per decimal and the rate of
land of Ext. 1/3 is Rs. 16,581/- per decimal. It also appears
from the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioners that,
the claimants have been paid compensation at the rate of
Rs.4823.95 per decimal. I further find that, the rate report
(Ext.D) submitted by G.P. shows that, there is no sale
transaction of village Tarhesa.
16. Furthermore, all the sale deed except two sale deeds
are residential nature, therefore, the rate of those sale
deeds should be converted in agriculture nature. The
Ext.’D’ filed by the opp. parties itself shows that, how the
rate of lands can be fixed in residential to agriculture. As
per these process shows in Ext.-D all residential rate of
exhibited sale deeds should be converted into agricultural
as half of the residential rate.”
Further, in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial
court referred to numerous judgements and observed that the market
value cannot be fixed on the basis of circle rate as the circle rates are
fixed by the collector only for collection of stamp duty.
Thereafter in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment the learned
trial court referred to section 26 of the Act of 2013 and held as under:
–
15
2026:JHHC:9006
“18. I Further find that, for determination of market value
of land it is essential to go through the provisions of
Sections 26 (b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, is as follows: “(b) the average sale
price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village
or nearest vicinity area”.
Explanation-2 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 is as follows:- “For determining the
average sale price referred to in Explanation1, one-half of
the total number of sale deeds or the agreement to sell in
which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be
taken into consideration”.
Thereafter, the learned trial court considered all the 16 sale deeds
placed on record, all placed by the claimants from exhibit- 1 to 1/15,
and took into consideration half of the sale deeds, total 8 in number
having highest rate, and arrived at average rate of Rs. 15,372.00 per
decimal. Then the learned trial court referred to the valuation chart
and circle rates and by citing interest of justice, fixed the
compensation at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per decimal. The findings of
the learned court at paragraph 19 is quoted as under: –
“19. I further find that, 16 sale deeds have been exhibited
in this case by the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners. Calculation of average rate as per provision of
Section 26 (b), Explanation 2 of the L.A.R.R. Act, 2013,
submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner, one half of
the total number of sale-deeds in which the highest sale-
price has been mentioned comes to Rs.15,372.00 per
decimal agricultural land. But from the communality
perusal of valuation chart based on sale-deeds near by the
adjacent village placed by the claimants, as well as,
valuation prepared by the land acquisition authority on the
vicinity area adjacent to the Tarhesa or itself based on
circle rates, I come to the conclusion based on the facts
remains in the present case, as well as, the settled law with
regard to the guiding factors towards assessment of the
valuation, it is just for the interest of justice Rs.11,000/- per
decimal is assessed for giving compensation to the entire
land situated in Mauza Tarhesa which has been acquired
for the NTPC Project related to the present case. Hence, all
the petitioners are entitled to get compensation @16
2026:JHHC:9006Rs.11,000/- per decimal and are also entitled to get all
statutory benefit provided under the provision of L.A.R.R.
Act, 2013. The payment of compensation with all benefits
shall be made within three months from the date of award.”
4. The arguments have been advanced from the records of F.A.
No. 36 of 2026 filed by NTPC Ltd. and F.A. No. 78 of 2026 filed by
the claimants and it has been submitted that for all the appeals filed by
NTPC Limited, the records in connection with F.A. No. 36 of 2026
would be sufficient and for all the appeals filed by the claimants, the
records of F.A. No. 78 of 2026 would be sufficient.
5. One petition bearing I.A No. 2329 of 2026 has been filed by
NTPC Limited in F.A. No. 36 of 2026 seeking to adduce additional
evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
vide order dated 10.02.2026 it was recorded with the consent of the
parties that the same I.A. would be considered for all the 59 cases filed
by NTPC Limited. Accordingly, said I.A No. 2329 of 2026 is required
to be considered for all the 59 cases filed by NTPC Limited.
6. Both the parties have furnished their synopsis of argument
before this Court and have argued their case and the arguments have
been recorded in the adjournment order dated 16.03.2026.
7. Arguments of the NTPC Limited
a. A petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been filed before this Court in F.A. No. 36 of
2026 placing on record numerous sale-deeds executed by P.W.
1, who is also one of the claimants in this batch of cases, but
P.W-1 did not bring the same on record. This amounts to
material suppression on the part of the claimants.
b. For proper adjudication of the cases and to fix compensation
payable to the claimants as per law, the additional evidence may
also be taken into consideration.
c. NTPC Limited is the beneficiary of the land acquisition
proceedings as the land has been acquired for the appellant-
NTPC. They came to know about the sale-deeds placed
through additional evidence when the claimants placed those
17
2026:JHHC:9006
sale-deeds before the authorities. If the additional evidence is
taken into consideration, the quantum of compensation would
come down.
d. The compensation was rightly fixed by the concerned authority
and the same did not call for any interference by the learned
court. The core issue to be decided in this case is –
Whether the determination of compensation by the
learned court of the Principal District Judge -cum-
L.A.R.R.A., Hazaribag is in conformity with the
provisions of section 26 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013?
e. The relevant dates in connection with the proceedings have
been recorded in the adjournment order itself based on the
written submissions.
f. The land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’) lapsed
and therefore, on 29th April, 2016, fresh application was filed
for initiation of land acquisition proceedings and after
completing the required formalities, the notification under
section 11 of the aforesaid Act of 2013 was published on 12th
June, 2019 whereby the total land to be acquired with respect to
village Tarhesa was 84.80 acres of raiyati land.
g. As per the provisions of section 26 of the Act of 2013, three
years was required to be taken with reference to 29th April, 2016
and not with reference to 12th June, 2019 and therefore, the
approach of the learned court while taking the average of half of
total number of sale deeds produced by the claimants by
referring to 12th June, 2019 is not in accordance with law.
h. The impugned judgment suffers from gross illegality for the
following reasons:
(a) No reason has been assigned why circle rate has not
been considered, which was of the year 2020 and such
consideration would have been as per the mandate of
Section 26 (1) (a) of the Act, 2013;
18
2026:JHHC:9006
(b)Explanation-I of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, was
not considered in its true perspective, and
(c) Sale deeds for the same village i.e., Tarhesa existed
to which the one of the claimants himself was a party.
The deeds with respect to same village are the best
evidence which were required to be taken into
consideration in order to ascertain the compensation. It
is submitted that additionally, by way of additional
evidence, the appellant- NTPC has brought on record
the sale-deeds to which Ram Swaroop Ojha (P.W-1- one
of the claimants) was a party, which revealed that the
rate of land never exceeded Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6000/- per
decimal for village Tarhesa.
i. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the NTPC
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2022) 7 SCC 247 (Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State
of Jharkhand) to submit that the application for additional
document by way of additional evidence can be allowed if the
document removes cloud of doubt and is directly linked to the
main and important issue. He also relied upon the judgment
reported in MANU/MH/1653/2021 (Ghanshaymdas
Chinkumal Saheswani Vs. Hiralal Ramchandra Saheswani)
to submit that application for filing additional documents can be
allowed when there is material concealment by the parties.
j. So far as the other judgments referred to in the written
submissions are concerned, the learned counsel for the NTPC
had submitted that they may not be relevant as they relate to the
Land Acquisition Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
k. Under section 26 of the Act of 2013, while referring to three
years, Calendar year is required to be taken into consideration.
He has referred to section 3(66) of General Clauses Act and
submits that the term ‘year’ necessarily means ‘calendar year’.
l. It is further submitted that previous three years mentioned in
section 26 will not be relatable to the date on which notification
under section 11 of the Act of 2013 is issued.
19
2026:JHHC:9006
m. Learned counsel for the NTPC has further submitted that so far
as the appeal filed by the claimants are concerned, there is no
merit in the same, rather the compensation is required to be
reduced.
8. Arguments of the Claimants
I. The cut-off date which is required to be taken is 12.06.2019, the
date when the notification under section 11 of the Act of 2013
was published. Therefore, the period for which the sale-deeds
could be considered is from 12.06.2016 to 12.06.2019. He
submits that even the authority has taken this particular period
for consideration and fixation of compensation.
II. So far as prayer for consideration of additional evidence is
concerned, all the sale-deeds annexed in the interlocutory
application filed for adducing additional evidence are relating to
the period prior to 12.06.2016 and therefore, the allegation that
the claimants had suppressed the material facts before the
authority, is not correct. He has submitted that those sale-deeds
are of no consequence when seen in the light of section 26 of
the aforesaid Act of 2013.
III. Even the circle rate has no relevance in view of the fact that
circle rate was less than the computation on the basis of sale-
deeds placed on record.
IV. During the course of hearing, it transpired that altogether 16
sale-deeds were produced and out of them, two were for the
period prior to 12.06.2016 and were with respect to the village
involved in the present case and the remaining sale-deeds were
falling within the period 12.06.2016 to 12.06.2019 and were of
the villages in the vicinity of the village involved in these cases.
V. To this, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that
only 14 sale-deeds could have been considered and out of them,
50% of the highest valued sale-deeds were required to be
considered in terms of section 26 of the Act of 2013. Average
of 7 sale-deeds was required to be considered. The learned court
has taken average of 8 sale-deeds while considering all the 16
20
2026:JHHC:9006
sale-deeds produced by the claimants, although two sale-deeds
were required to be excluded if the period from 12.06.2016 to
12.06.2019 is taken into consideration. He has also given the
calculation of rate taking into consideration the 7 sale-deeds of
highest value, if two sale-deeds as stated above are excluded,
which comes to Rs. 15,782.71 per decimal.
VI. The rate for agricultural land has to be taken at ½ of the rate of
residential land which would be in line with the circle rate. As
per the circle rate also, the rate of agricultural land is ½ of the
residential land. The compensation which has been awarded is
@ Rs. 11000/- per decimal although there is no basis and no
justification to deviate from the average rate of the 7 sale-deeds
of highest value, which were fit to be considered as per section
26 of the Act of 2013.
VII. The learned counsel for the claimants has given the chart of the
total 16 sale-deeds produced before the learned trial court
giving the rate per decimal in the written submissions which has
been quoted in the adjournment order dated 16.03.2026 and will
be reproduced later on in this judgment.
VIII. The arguments of the learned ASGI representing the NTPC
Limited that the period starting from three years prior to
29.04.2016 is required to be considered is misplaced and the
cut-off date would be 12th June, 2019 and not 29th April, 2016.
IX. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment
passed by this Court in F.A. No. 298 of 2023 decided on
16.07.2025 and has referred to paragraph 26 and 27 of the said
judgment and has submitted that there was no occasion to
deviate from the average of the best 7 sale-deeds which were
produced before the court.
X. By referring to first proviso to section 26 of the Act of 2013, it
has been submitted that the referable date is the date of
notification under section 11 of the Act of 2013 for the purposes
of determination of market value and therefore, the same is not
relatable to calendar year and the definition of ‘year’ under
21
2026:JHHC:9006
General Clauses Act will have no applicability to section 26 of
the Act of 2013 while computing the compensation payable for
acquisition of land under the said Act of 2013.
Findings of this court.
9. The core issue to be decided in this case is –
Whether the determination of compensation by the
learned court of the Principal District Judge -cum-
L.A.R.R.A., Hazaribag is in conformity with the
provisions of section 26 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013?
10. The foundational facts as mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
this judgement are not in dispute. The District Land Acquisition
Officer fixed the compensation at flat rate of Rs. 4,823/- per decimal
and by the impugned judgment, the compensation has been enhanced
to flat rate of Rs. 11,000/- per decimal. Both the claimants as well as
NTPC Limited are aggrieved by the impugned judgment. 59 cases
have been filed by NTPC Limited and 59 cases have been filed by the
claimants.
11. The relevant dates in connection with the proceedings have
been recorded in the adjournment order itself based on the written
submissions of NTPC Limited are as under:
Relevant date with particulars
January 25, 2006 Keredari Coal Mining Project allotted to NTPC
May 16, 2012 Gazette Notification under the Land Acquisition
And Act, 1894
August 4, 2012
June 10, 2015 Re-allotment of Keredari Coal Mining Project to
NTPC
July 7, 2015 Lapse of earlier land acquisition proceedings
April 29, 2016 Fresh application for initiation of land
acquisition proceedings under The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013
June 12, 2019 Notification under Section 11 of the Right to22
2026:JHHC:9006Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. Total land acquired in village-
Tarhesa: 84.80 acres of raiyati land.
May 21, 2022 Reference made to the learned Court under
Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
November 30, Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,823/- to Rs.
2024 11,000/- per decimal. Enhancement of
compensation has been determined on the basis
of sale deeds marked as Exhibit-1 to 1/15 and
Section 26 of The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
12. The aforesaid sequence of events as mentioned in the written
submissions filed on behalf of NTPC Limited and also recorded in the
order dated 16.03.2026 has not been disputed by the learned counsel
for the claimants during the course of hearing. However, it is
important to observe that the sequence of events from 25.01.2006 to
29.04.2016 has not been pleaded or mentioned by the parties in their
written statements filed before the learned trial court nor any
documents have been filed in support of the same. However, since
NTPC Limited has argued the case by referring to the aforesaid
sequence of events without any objection from the side of the
claimants, the point arising out of such sequence of events is also
being considered by this Court.
13. The aforesaid sequence of events from 25.01.2006 to
29.04.2016 has been projected by the NTPC Limited in the written
arguments primarily to show that the earlier proceeding for acquisition
of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapsed upon coming into
force of the aforesaid Act of 2013. The NTPC Limited claimed to
have made fresh application for initiation of land acquisition
proceedings under the Act of 2013 on 29th April, 2016.
Consequently, it has been argued that to arrive at the ‘market value’ of
the acquired land in terms of Section 26, the sale deeds relating to the
period three years prior to the year 2016 were required to be taken into
23
2026:JHHC:9006
consideration to quantify the compensation amount payable to the
claimants and if that be so, the compensation payable would be much
less as compared to compensation awarded by the learned trial court
and for that purpose, the sale deeds sought to be brought on record
through the interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional
evidence are also required to be taken into account.
14. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, this Court now proceeds to
determine the period to be covered within the term ‘preceding three
years’ so as to further arrive at finding as to whether the rate of
compensation has been rightly arrived by the learned trial court and
for that purpose, the interlocutory application seeking to adduce
additional evidence is also required to be considered.
A. Determination of the Period to be covered within the meaning of the
term ‘preceding three years’ under explanation 1 to section 26(1)(b) of
the Act of 2013.
15. The acquisition of land in the present case is admittedly
governed by the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2013 and the
sections relevant for the present case are sections 11, 26 and 27 which
are quoted as under:
Section 11 of the Act of 2013
“11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of
officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever, it appears to the
appropriate Government that land in any area is required or
likely to be required for any public purpose, a notification
(hereinafter referred to as preliminary notification) to that
effect along with details of the land to be acquired in rural and
urban areas shall be published in the following manner,
namely:–
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of
such area of which one shall be in the regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or
Municipal Corporation, as the case may be and in the
offices of the District Collector, the Sub-divisional
Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate
Government;
24
2026:JHHC:9006
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(2) Immediately after issuance of the notification under sub-
section (1), the concerned Gram Sabha or Sabhas at the village
level, municipalities in case of municipal areas and the
Autonomous Councils in case of the areas referred to in the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, shall be informed of the
contents of the notification issued under the said sub-section in
all cases of land acquisition at a meeting called especially for
this purpose.
(3) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall also
contain a statement on the nature of the public purpose
involved, reasons necessitating the displacement of affected
persons, summary of the Social Impact Assessment Report and
particulars of the Administrator appointed for the purposes of
rehabilitation and resettlement under section 43.
(4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any
transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or
create any encumbrances on such land from the date of
publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings
under this Chapter are completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by
the owner of the land so notified, exempt in special
circumstances to be recorded in writing, such owner from the
operation of this sub-section:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person
due to his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up
by the Collector.
(5) After issuance of notice under sub-section (1), the Collector
shall, before the issue of a declaration under section 19,
undertake and complete the exercise of updating of land
records as prescribed within a period of two months.”
Section 26 of the Act of 2013
26. Determination of market value of land by Collector. – (1)
The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and
determining the market value of the land, namely:-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or25
2026:JHHC:9006agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the
land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in
the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under
sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for
private companies or for public private partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be
the date on which the notification has been issued under section
11.
Explanation 1. The average sale price referred to in clause (b)
shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the
agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near
village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three
years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to
be made.
Explanation 2.-For determining the average sale price referred
to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or
the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been
mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.-While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or
Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired
under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the
district shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4.-While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or
Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the
Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may
be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be
multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) cannot be determined for the reason that-
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land
are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force
in that area; or
26
2026:JHHC:9006
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for
the immediately preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority,
the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or
minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price
calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of
similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares
to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a
part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case
shall exceed twenty-five per cent of the value so calculated under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case
may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel
any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its
shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land
calculated under sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any
land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps
to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of
the prevalent market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that
the market value determined for acquisition of any land or
property of an educational institution established and
administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as
would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice.”
Section 27 of the Act of 2013
“27. Determination of amount of compensation.- The Collector
having determined the market value of the land to be acquired
shall calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the
land owner (whose land has been acquired) by including all assets
attached to the land.”
16. It is not in dispute between the parties that the compensation
has to be determined under the aforesaid Act of 2013 in terms of
section 26 of the Act. However, before considering section 26 of the
Act, section 11 of the Act of 2013 is also required to be considered.
27
2026:JHHC:9006
Section 11 clearly provides that whenever it appears to the appropriate
government that land in any area is required or likely to be required
for any public purpose, a notification to that effect along with details
of the land to be acquired shall, inter alia, be published in the official
gazette.
17. The provision of section 26 of the Act of 2013 reveals that the
market value of the land is to be determined by adopting the method
provided under section 26(1)(a) or 26(1)(b) or 26(1)(c), whichever is
higher. The section also provides that the date for determination of
‘market value’ shall be the date on which the notification had been
issued under section 11 of the Act of 2013.
18. Section 26(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 refers to the market value,
if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of
sale-deeds or agreement to sell in the area where the land is situated;
section 26(1)(b) refers to average sale price for similar types of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area and section
26(1)(c) refers to consented amount of compensation as agreed.
Explanation 1 to Section 26(1) provides that the average sale price
referred to in clause (b) of section 26(1) shall be determined taking
into account the sale-deeds or agreements of sale registered for similar
type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during
immediately preceding three years of the year in which such
acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2 provides that for determining the average sale price
referred to in Explanation 1, ½ of the total number of sale deeds or
the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been
mentioned shall be taken into account.
Further, as per section 27, the Collector having determined the market
value of the land to be acquired has to calculate the total amount of
compensation to be paid to the land owner by including all assets
attached to the land and as per section 26, the date for determination of
‘market value’ shall be the date on which the notification has been
issued under section 11.
28
2026:JHHC:9006
19. It is the specific case of the NTPC Limited that the three years
is required to be calculated taking into consideration the date 29 th
April, 2016 when fresh application was made for initiation of land
acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013 and their further
argument is that the term ‘year’ used in explanation -1 of section 26(1)
of the Act of 2013 should refer to ‘calendar year’ as defined under
General Clauses Act, 1897 and therefore, the ‘preceding three years’
would be 2013, 2014 and 2015.
20. On the other hand, the specific arguments of the claimants on
the aforesaid two points are that the preceding three years would
relate to 12th June, 2019, the date of notification issued under section
11 of the Act of 2013 and therefore, the preceding three years would
be exactly three years prior to 12th June, 2019 and consequently, the
preceding three years would be from 12th June, 2016 to 11th June,
2019 and there is no question of referring to preceding three calendar
years. Their further case is that there is no occasion to refer to 29th
April, 2016, the date when NTPC Limited filed application for
acquisition of land under the Act of 2013 as the notification under
section 11 of the Act of 2013 has been issued on 12 th June, 2019 and
the preceding three years would be from 12th June, 2016 to 11th June,
2019.
It has also been submitted and is not in dispute that even the authority
while offering the compensation has taken the dates in the same
manner as argued by the claimants, that is, from 12th June 2016 to 12th
June 2019 by considering the relevant date as the date of preliminary
notification issued under section 11 of the Act of 2013 as 12th June
2019.
21. If the arguments of the parties are put in a tabular form, it
would be as follows:
As per NTPC Limited As per Claimants
Period of preceding three Period of preceding three
years for consideration of years for consideration of
sale deeds would be sale-deeds would be 12th
Calander years 2013 to 2015 June, 2016 to 11th June, 2019
29
2026:JHHC:9006
taking into consideration the (referable to date of
relevant date as 29th April, notification under section 11
2016 when fresh application of the Act of 2013).
was made for initiation of Neither there is any relevance
land acquisition proceedings of the date 29th April, 2016
under the Act of 2013. when fresh application was
made for initiation of land
acquisition proceedings under
the Act of 2013 nor there is
any occasion to refer to
‘Calander years’ while
considering ‘preceding three
years’
22. This court is of the considered view that the arguments
advanced by the learned ASGI appearing for NTPC Limited are
devoid of any merits on account of the following reasons: –
(a) On the point of taking 29th April, 2016 as cut-off date for
computing the period of ‘preceding three years’ to determine
market value of the acquired land for payment of compensation
If the argument of NTPC Limited that the ‘preceding three years’ for
determination of ‘market value’ is to be related to 29th April, 2016
[when fresh application for initiation of Land Acquisition Proceedings
was made after the proceeding lapsed under the old Act] is accepted ,
it would lead to a situation that the three years prior to 29 th April,
2016 would be taken into consideration for determination of ‘market
value’ on the date of issuance of notification under section 11 [which
in the present case is 12th June, 2019].
If such argument is accepted, it would lead to a situation that any sale-
deed from 29th April, 2016 till 11th June, 2019 will not be taken into
consideration to determine the ‘market value’ as on the date of
notification under section 11 which is 12th of June 2019.
Such is not the intention of the legislature. The legislature has clearly
and in unequivocal words provided under section 26 of the Act of
2013 itself that the date for determination of ‘market value’ shall be
the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11 of
the Act of 2013.
30
2026:JHHC:9006
Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the ‘immediately
preceding three years’ for computing the ‘market value’ on the date of
notification under section 11 and for the purpose of determination of
compensation under the Act of 2013 for the acquired land would be
‘immediately preceding three years’ from the date of notification
under section 11 and not from the date when NTPC claimed to have
filed fresh application for initiation of Land Acquisition Proceedings
after the proceeding said to have been lapsed under the Land
Acquisition Act of 1894. The date of notification under section 11 is
12.06.2019.
(b) On the point of taking Calander year into consideration while
referring to ‘preceding three years’ to determine market value of
the acquired land for payment of compensation.
It has been held as above under point (a) that the cut -off date would
be 12th of June 2019 for referring to ‘immediately preceding three
years’ under section 26 of the Act of 2013.
Section 3 (66) of General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that in all the
central Acts and Regulations, made after commencement of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context, the term ‘year’ as defined under section 3(66) of
the aforesaid Act of 1897 shall mean a year reckoned according to the
British calendar. The provisions are quoted as under:
“3. Definitions.- In this Act, and in all Central Acts and
Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, –
(1)…
…………
(66) “year” shall mean a year reckoned according to the
British calendar.”
This Court finds that the said definition of ‘year’ as provided under
the General Clauses Act, 1897 sought to be applied by NTPC Limited
to section 26 of the Act of 2013 to refer to the period of ‘immediately
preceding three years’ to arrive at market value of the acquired land,
is completely out of context and would be contrary to the intent and
31
2026:JHHC:9006
manner in which the ‘market value’ has to be determined under
section 26 of the Act of 2013 for payment of compensation .
Section 26 of the Act of 2013 itself refers to the fact that the date for
determination of ‘market value’ shall be the date on which the
notification has been issued under section 11 of the Act of 2013.
In the present case, notification under section 11 of the Act of 2013
has been issued on 12th June, 2019. If ‘calendar year’ is taken into
consideration, as argued by NTPC Limited , then the ‘previous three
calendar years’ would be 2016, 2017 and 2018 and the sale-deeds
executed in the year 2019 and prior to 12th June, 2019 will not be
covered although the intention of the legislature, as it appears from
section 26 itself, is to determine the ‘market value’ of the land as on
the date of notification under section 11 of the Act of 2013.
Further, if the arguments of NTPC Limited is taken into consideration,
the calendar year of 2019 can certainly not be taken into
consideration, inasmuch as, part of the calendar year of 2019 will fall
after 12th June, 2019 and the market value has to be determined
referable to notification under section 11 of the Act of 2013 and the
sale-deeds of ‘immediately preceding three years’ are to be taken into
consideration.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that reference to
‘calendar year’ which is sought to be introduced by referring to
General Clauses Act, 1897 will be totally out of context and contrary
to the provision of determination of ‘market value’ as on the date of
notification issued under section 11 of the Act of 2013. Hence the
arguments of NTPC Limited is rejected.
Conclusion
Since as per section 26 of the Act of 2013, the market value is to be
determined as on the date of notification under section 11, this court is
of the considered view that no other date can be taken as the cut-off
date for considering the sale deeds of the ‘immediately preceding
three years’ other than the date of notification under section 11, which
in the present case has been published on 12 th June, 2019.
Consequently, the period for considering the previous sale deeds
32
2026:JHHC:9006
falling under the category ‘immediately preceding three years’ would
be 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019.
This period is almost matching with the period taken by the concerned
authority while offering the compensation to the claimants as per
exhibit D who has taken the period from 12.06.2016 to 12.06.2019.
However, there is no sale deed in this case of the date 12.06.2019 and
accordingly, 11.06.2019 or 12.06.2019 is immaterial for these cases.
B. Additional evidence
23. Having concluded as aforesaid, it has to be considered as to
whether the compensation has been rightly fixed and whether the
claimants are guilty of suppression of materials facts from the learned
court and what would be the fate of the additional evidence sought to
be brought on record by NTPC Limited through I.A No. 2329 of 2026.
I.A No. 2329 of 2026 (additional evidence)
24. The interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional
evidence has been filed by NTPC Limited to bring on record as many
as 10 sale deeds, all relating to village Tarhesa, most of them are said
to have been executed by Ram Swaroop Singh (P.W.1), who himself
is one of the claimants, and they fall within the period from 25th July,
2015 to 16th May, 2016. Further, by referring to the said sale deeds it
has been argued that the claimants had suppressed material facts from
the learned court with respect to the aforesaid sale deeds and the said
sale deeds would reveal that the compensation as awarded by the
learned trial court is much higher than the entitlement of the claimants
in terms of Section 26 read with Section 27 of the Act of 2013. It has
also been argued that production of the sale deeds for the first time
before this Court has been explained as NTPC Limited came to know
about the said sale deeds for the first time when those were produced
before them by the claimants. The written submission also contains
the chart in connection with the aforesaid sale deeds sought to be
placed in record through additional evidence and is based on the sale
deeds. The said chart is quoted as under: –
Mouza Consideration Area Date of the Sale deed
33
2026:JHHC:9006Tarhesa ₹ 15,000/- 03 Decimal May 16, 2016
Tarhesa ₹ 10,000/- 02 Decimal August 4, 2015
Tarhesa ₹ 5,000/- 01 Decimal February 9, 2016
Tarhesa ₹ 14,000/- 3 Decimal July 25, 2015
Tarhesa ₹ 5,000/- 01 Decimal February 9, 2016
Tarhesa ₹ 5,000/- 01 Decimal February 9, 2016
Tarhesa ₹ 10,000/- 02 Decimal January 28, 2016
Tarhesa ₹ 5000/- 01 decimal January 28, 2016
Tarhesa ₹ 12,000/- 02 Decimal April 28, 2016
Tarhesa ₹ 5,000/- 01 Decimal February 9, 2016
25. As held above, the period for considering the previous sale
deeds falling under the category ‘immediately preceding three years’
would be 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019. Even the competent authority
while offering the compensation had taken the same period into
consideration.
This court finds none of the aforesaid sale deeds sought to be brought
on record by way of additional evidence through I.A No. 2329 of 2026
falling within the said period and hence, they do not come under the
zone of consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation
payable to the claimants. Accordingly, the allegation of NTPC
Limited that the claimants, particularly P.W-1, are guilty of
suppression of materials facts from the court is also rejected. In view
of the aforesaid findings, the I.A No. 2329 of 2026 seeking to adduce
additional evidence is rejected.
C. Now it is to be examined as to whether the learned trial court has
rightly fixed the compensation in terms of the section 26 of the Act of
2013 based on the materials placed on record.
26. The claimants have adduced oral, as well as, documentary
evidence.
27. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants,
P.W. 1 is Ramswarup Ojha, P.W. 2 is Manoj Kumar Ojha and P.W. 3
is Pankaj Lal Jaiswal.
34
2026:JHHC:9006
P.W. 1 is also one of the claimants. He has stated that, the land of
village Tarhesa was acquired by the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Hazaribagh in the year 2019 for NTPC. He further stated that
all the claimants jointly submitted petition to the District Land
Acquisition Officer to determine the average prevailing market rate at
least at Rs.19,000/-, but the authority arbitrarily fixed a very low rate
of about Rs.4,823/- per decimal. The nature of land of all the
applicants related to the case is the same and the nature of all the land
acquired is residential and Tanr No.1 land. The acquired land of the
applicants is situated between Tarhesa and Keredari and Keredari is
adjacent to the market area. Two highways pass from both the sides
and Tandwa Thermal Power plant is situated at a distance of about ½
Kilometre. Apart from this, banks, high school, college, police station,
hospital etc. are also situated there. This witness further stated that at
the time of land acquisition, the market value of the land was about
Rs.50,000/- per decimal. In cross-examination, P.W. 1 has stated
that the compensation for the acquired land was fixed by the
government at the flat rate of Rs.4823/- per decimal and land was
acquired in the year 2019. The distance of village Barkagaon from
Hazaribagh is approximately 5 km and the distance from Barkagaon
to Keredari is 2.5 -03 km. This witness denied the suggestion that
distance from Hazaribagh to Keredari is about 40 km. He further
stated that in the year 2011-12, some amount of compensation was
withdrawn, but he did not know how much amount was withdrawn.
P.W. 2 is also one of the claimants . His examination in chief is in the
same lines as that of P.W-1. In his cross-examination, he stated that
the land was acquired by the government in the year 2019 and in the
year 2019, the government rate of land of village Tarhesa was
Rs.20,000/- per decimal. The paper of such government rate have not
been filed in the court. Tarhesa village is under Keredari area and the
distance from Barkagaon to Keredari is about 2.5 km. Tarhesa village
is half kilometer away from Chattibazar. NTPC Thermal Power is
situated in Chatra District. He has further stated that the khatiyan of
the land was filed in the court. As per this witness, no highway passes
35
2026:JHHC:9006
through his village, it passes through the Keredari village. He further
stated that some money has already been taken from the government
for the land for which the present case has been lodged to increase the
rate.
P.W. 3 is Pankaj Lal Jaiswal who is a resident of village Jugra. He has
also deposed on the similar lines as that of the P.W-1 and P.W-2 and
stated that the lands of the claimants were acquired in the 2019 for
NTPC Project and the nature of land of all the claimants was same and
the nature of land was residential and Tand No.1 land. He stated that
the District Land Acquisition Officer, in collusion with NTPC, has
fixed a very low rate of about Rs.4823/- per decimal. At the time of
acquisition, the price of land of Tarhesa and the area Jamira, Hewai,
Bangwari, Jugra etc. was Rs.18,000-20,000 per decimal. In cross-
examination, he stated that he had purchased the land in village
Tarhesa @ Rs.25,000/- per decimal and he could file the deed of the
land. There is Health Centre in village Tarhesa, but there is no college.
The land around Tarhesa village was worth between RS.18,000-
20,000/- per decimal and he had seen the price mentioned in the sale
deed.
28. Sixteen sale deeds have been exhibited on behalf of the
claimants as exhibit-1 to exhibit-1/15.
29. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Land
acquisition officer and also NTPC Limited. However, the following
documents have been proved on their behalf:
Exhibit A Attested copy of order-sheet of L.A. Case
No.01/2016-17
Exhibit B Attested copy of sale figure chart.
Exhibit C Attested copy of estimate.
Exhibit D Attested copy of rate report
Exhibit E Attested copy of valuation Khatiyan
Exhibit F Attested copy of Notification
No.562/L.A., dated 07.06.201936
2026:JHHC:9006
30. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties
have primarily referred to the documentary evidences placed on record
by the parties and it is not in dispute that for the purpose of
determination of compensation in terms of Section 26 of the aforesaid
Act of 2013, three modes, as explained above, under Section 26(1)(a),
26 (1)(b) and 26(1)(c) have been prescribed and whichever is of
higher value amongst them, is to be taken into consideration.
It is further not in dispute that as per explanation 1 to section 26 of the
Act of 2013, the average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be
determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreement of sale
registered for similar type of area in the nearby village or near vicinity
area during immediately preceding three years.
As per explanation 2, for determining the average sale price referred
to in explanation 1, half of the total number of sale deeds or the
agreements of sale, in which highest sale price has been mentioned,
shall be taken into account.
The circle rate has been exhibited by NTPC Limited/ State before the
learned court vide exhibit-B and during the course of arguments it
transpired that the circle rate of agricultural land is half of the circle
rate for residential land and there are three categories of land. The
circle rate with respect to the village Tarhesa involved in these cases
has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties and has
been shown as under: –
Rural Valuation of Hazaribagh District Anchal – Keredari
Sl Anchal Mouja Thana Agriculture Industrial Res. Comm
Name No.
1 Keredari Bukchoma 1 1970 2960 3940 5910
… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
10 Keredari Tarhesa 10 2620 3930 5240 7860
31. The claimants in their written notes of arguments have given
the details of the sixteen sale deeds exhibited by them and have also
calculated the rate per decimal of land depending upon nature of land,
residential/agricultural and as mentioned above, circle rate for37
2026:JHHC:9006agricultural land as on 01.11.2018 is shown as ½ as compared to that
of residential land for village Tarhesa involved in these cases. The
said chart has been placed during the course of hearing and the
calculations made therein based on the sale deed (exhibit- 1 to 1/15)
along with other details are not in dispute. The chart is as follows: –
Sl. Sale Date of Sale Mauza Nature of Area in Sale deed Rate Per Rate Per Ext. No.
No. Deed deed the Land Acres value Decimal Decimal
No. (Residential) (Agricultural)
1. 2124 08.04.2016 Tarhesa Residential 0.02 50,000 25,000 12,500 Ext. 1
2. 2307 21.04.2016 Tarhesa Residential 0.02 50,000 25,000 12,500 Ext. 1/1
3. 1234 25.03.2019 Jamira Agricultural 0.1450 4,90,000 NIL 33,793 Ext. 1/2
4. 1166 13.03.2019 Jamira Agricultural 0.2533 4,20,000 NIL 16,581.12 Ext. 1/3
5. 6581 17.10.2016 Jamira Residential 0.1950 2,62,000 13,435.89 6,717.94 Ext. 1/4
6. 6078 21.09.2016 Hewai Residential 0.0533 2,60,000 48,780.78 24,390.39 Ext. 1/5
7. 277 20.01.2017 Hewai Residential 0.0430 1,00,000 23,255.81 11,627.90 Ext. 1/6
8. 6165 23.12.2017 Bengwari Residential 0.3415 4,75,000 13,909.22 6,954.61 Ext. 1/7
9. 780 30.01.2018 Hewai Residential 0.2941 3,00,000 10,200.61 5,100.30 Ext. 1/8
10. 1971 17.03.2018 Hewai Residential 0.40 4,95,000 12,375 6,187.50 Ext. 1/9
11. 4751 21.07.2018 Hewai Residential 0.12 2,50,000 20,833.33 10,416.66 Ext. 1/10
12. 372 29.01.2019 Hewai Residential 0.16 1,62,000 10,125 5,062.50 Ext. 1/11
13. 1509 28.03.2017 Bengwari Residential 0.06 75,000 12,500 6,250 Ext. 1/12
14. 3572 12.09.2017 Bengwari Res/Agri 0.48 4,90,000 10,208.33 5,104.16 Ext. 1/13
15. 3754 20.06.2018 Bengwari Res/Agri 1.14 9,75,000 8,552.63 4,276.31 Ext. 1/14
16. 6464 24.09.2018 Bengwari Residential 0.1008 1,30,000 12,896.82 6,448.41 Ext. 1/15
32. Altogether 16 sale deeds were exhibited before the learned
court by the claimants and no sale deed was exhibited by the State or
NTPC Limited. The learned trial court has taken the average of 8 sale
deeds of highest rate and the average rate came to Rs. 15,372/- per
decimal. While computing the rate, the deeds of residential properties
were taken at ½ its rate by referring to the manner of calculation of
circle rate. It is important to note that the P.W-3 during his cross
examination at para 36 has stated that the lands are agricultural land.
However, the learned court reduced and allowed compensation @ Rs.
11,000/- per decimal without assigning any cogent reason and without
any justification.
33. The learned counsel for NTPC Limited has raised the following
three points on rate of compensation for the acquired land which are
as follows: –
(a)No reason has been assigned why circle rate has not
been considered, which was of the year 2020 and such
consideration would have been as per the mandate of
Section 26(1)(a) of the Act, 2013;
38
2026:JHHC:9006
(b)Explanation-1 of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, was
not considered in its true perspective, and
(c) Sale deeds for the same village i.e., Tarhesa existed
to which one of the claimants himself was a party. The
deeds with respect to same village are the best evidence
which were required to be taken into consideration in
order to ascertain the compensation. It is submitted
that additionally, by way of additional evidence, the
appellant- NTPC has brought on record the sale-deeds
to which Ram Swaroop Ojha (P.W-1- one of the
claimants) was a party, which revealed that the rate of
land never exceeded Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6000/- per
decimal for village Tarhesa.
So far as point no. (a) is concerned, the circle rate for village Tarhesa
involved in this case for agricultural land is Rs.2620/- per decimal
which is certainly the market value specified for registration of sale
deeds and payment of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
but even the competent authority at the threshold had offered the
compensation at much higher rate of Rs. 4823/- per decimal and the
state and also NTPC Ltd were not aggrieved by such rate. In fact, the
claimants were aggrieved and they sought enhancement of rate of
compensation.
Further, the computation of rate of compensation in terms of section
26(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 is much higher than the circle rate and
hence the higher rate has to be taken as per section 26 itself.
Consequently, the application of circle rate for the purpose of fixation
of compensation is completely ruled out in the fact of these cases.
However, the reasoning given by the learned court that circle rate
cannot be applied for fixation of rate of compensation for the acquired
land by referring to the judgments passed under the repealed Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 is misconceived as the rate of compensation of
the acquired land has to be arrived by applying the method prescribed
under section 26(1)(a) or 26 (1) (b)or 26(1)(c) of the Act of 2013
whichever is higher.
In the instant case, method under section 26 (1)(b) would fetch higher
‘market value’ as compared to method under section 26(1)(a)
39
2026:JHHC:9006
referrable to payable stamp duty and hence, circle rate of the acquired
land and method prescribed under section 26 (1)(c) are not applicable.
Hence, the reference to circle rate to arrive at the ‘market value’ of the
acquired land is of no consequence and the same cannot be applied to
the facts of these cases.
So far as point no. (b) and (c) are concerned, this court has held above
while considering the point (A), that is, “Determination of the Period
to be covered within the meaning of the term ‘preceding three years’
under explanation 1 to section 26(1)(b) of the Act of 2013″, that the
sale deeds from 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019 would fall under the zone of
consideration for taking average rate in terms of section 26(1)(b) read
with explanation 1 and 2 of the Act of 2013. This Court is of the view
that none of the sale deeds brought on record by the claimants and
sought to be brought on record by the NTPC Limited through
additional evidence which relate to the village Tarhesa fall within the
zone of consideration and therefore, the rate of land with respect to
adjoining villages have to be taken into consideration for arriving at
the rate of compensation.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the points raised by the
NTPC Ltd to challenge the impugned judgment are devoid of any
merits. However, the learned trial court has committed certain errors
while applying explanation 2 to section 26(1)(b) of the Act of 2013
which will be discussed later while consideration of computation of
compensation.
35. This Court is of the considered view that once the average rate
is arrived in terms of the provision of Section 26 (1)(b) of the Act of
2013 and the same is found to be higher than the calculation under
Section 26(1)(a) and Section 26(1)(c), the court has no option but to
take the average rate as arrived under section 26(1)(b). Therefore, the
approach of the learned trial court to take figure of Rs.11,000/- per
decimal, which is different from the average rate as arrived under
section 26(1)(b), is beyond the scope of Section 26 of the Act of 2013,
particularly when neither any cogent reason has been assigned nor any
justification has been given. Reference to circle rates while taking the
40
2026:JHHC:9006
rate as Rs.11,000/- per decimal while computing rate of compensation
under section 26(1)(b) is contrary to the mandate of section 26 of the
Act of 2013 itself. Therefore, fixation of compensation at Rs.11,000/-
per decimal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
D. Computation of rate of compensation of the acquired land
36. Apart from the aforesaid, it is also required to be seen as to
which of the sale deeds, amongst the 16 sale deeds, fall within the
relevant period i.e. between 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019 to be eligible
for consideration for the purpose of taking average rate of ½ of such
eligible sale deeds. The competent authority had fixed compensation
at flat rate for the entire village and the trial court has also fixed
compensation at flat rate but the rate has been enhanced to Rs.
11,000/- per decimal.
This Court finds that Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 1/1 are the sale deeds
related to village Tarhesa, which is the village involved in the present
case, but they are dated 18.04.2016 and 21.04.2016 respectively and
falling beyond the period from 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019 and
therefore, are out of the zone of consideration for calculating the
average rate for the acquired land.
So far as rest of the sale deeds are concerned, they are of villages
adjoining or nearby to village Tarhesa as it has come during the oral
evidence from the side of the claimants as discussed above and
consequently, the sale deeds from Exhibit 1/2 to 1/15 fall within the
zone of consideration which are total 14 in number. Half of such
eligible sale deeds would be total 7 in number.
All the 14 sale deeds, except Exhibit 1/2 and 1/3, are relating to the
residential nature of land and therefore, the rate of those sale deeds
have been converted into the rate of agricultural land by reducing the
same as ½ of the rate of residential land relying on the mode of
calculation of circle rate of residential land and agricultural land by
the government where the rate of agricultural land comes always ½ of
the rate of residential land (Exhibit-B). The average rate of the highest
7 sale deeds (taking rate of agricultural land) would consist of sale
deeds at Serial No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the above chart (Exhibit
41
2026:JHHC:9006
1/2 to 1/7 and Exhibit 1/10) and if average is taken, the calculation
would be as under: –
The Total average market value per decimal of highest
valued 7 sale deeds, if Ext.1 & Ext. 1/1 are excluded, is
calculated as follows: –
33,793.10+16,581.12+6,717.95+24,390.24+11,627.91
+6,954.61+10,416.66 = 1,10,481.59.
Hence, the average market value per decimal of highest
valued 7 sale deeds is Rs. 1,10,481.59/7 = Rs.15,783.08 per
decimal or Rs.15,783/- per decimal.
37. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
of the considered view that the rate of compensation in terms of
Section 26 of the Act of 2013 would come to Rs.15,783/- per decimal.
The compensation granted by the learned trial court at the rate of
Rs.11,000/- per decimal in the impugned judgement and awards as
discussed above, is hereby set aside to the aforesaid extent and the
compensation is now fixed at Rs.15,783/- per decimal as calculated
above. It is made clear that the direction by the learned trial court that
the claimants would be entitled to all statutory benefits provided under
the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2013 does not call for any
interference.
38. The appeals filed by NTPC Limited seeking reduction of
compensation payable to the claimants are dismissed.
39. The appeals filed by the claimants are allowed by enhancing
the rate of compensation per acre with respect to the acquired land
from Rs. 11,000/- per decimal to Rs.15,783/- per decimal. The
direction by the learned trial court that the claimants would be entitled
to all statutory benefits provided under the provisions of the aforesaid
Act of 2013 does not call for any interference.
40. The learned executing court shall take into consideration the
interim order dated 10.02.2026 passed in F.A. No. 52 of 2026 and
analogous cases whereby stay order was granted subject to certain
conditions. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the order dated 10.02.2026 are quoted
as under:
42
2026:JHHC:9006
“5. Considering the facts and circumstances of these cases and also
the fact that the parties are otherwise ready to argue the case at the
earliest, the further proceedings in the execution cases involved in
these matters are hereby stayed till 16.03.2026 subject to following
conditions: –
(i) The appellant-NTPC shall deposit the awarded amount with
up to date interest calculated till the date of deposit before the
learned executing court within a period of 15 days from today.
The amount already deposited be adjusted.
(ii) The claimants will be entitled to payment of the
compensation amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer which has been deposited by the appellant-NTPC
subject to deduction of Court fees which is payable in their
respective First Appeal. The amount of payable Court fees with
respect to each appeal filed by the claimants has been
mentioned in the order passed today itself in the batch of
appeals filed by the claimants.
6. All these Interlocutory Applications seeking stay of execution of
the impugned judgment and awards, are hereby allowed in
aforesaid terms.
7. The amount of Court fees so deducted is directed to be remitted
by the executing court to the State Government under appropriate
account head.”
41. It is for the executing court to ensure that the court fees payable
in the 1st appeals filed by the claimants are deducted and remitted to
the state government under appropriate head and the state is directed
to assist the learned executing court to do the needful in this regard as
per law so that there is no loss to the State exchequer on account of
court fees. The records of the cases reveal that the court fees have not
been paid by the claimants in any of their appeals, except F.A No. 78
of 2026.
42. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not
pressed.
43. Office to prepare decree.
44. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned
through ‘FAX/email’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of pronouncement: 30.03.2026
Pankaj
Date of Uploading:30.03.2026
43