Jharkhand High Court
The Chief Executive Engineer vs Uttam Kumar Mondal (Died And … on 27 July, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:22176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 166 of 2009
The Chief Executive Engineer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Right
Bank Thermal Power Station, Maithon, P.O. & P.S.- Maithon,
District- Dhanbad, through Yogendra Prasad, Joint Director Personnel
(Estate), D.V.C. Maithon, P.O. P.S. Maithon, District- Dhanbad
... ... Opposite Party No. 4/Appellant
Versus
1. Uttam Kumar Mondal (died and substituted vide order dated
20.07.2010)
1(i) Radha Rani Mondal - widow
1(ii) Sharbani Mondal (Daughter) Minor
1(iii) Shreelata Mondal- (Daughter) Minor
2. Ashok Kumar Mondal,
3. Kishore Kumar Mondal,
All sons of Late Bishwanath Mondal, resident of Village-
Barahbendia, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad
... ... Applicants/Respondents
4. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
5. The Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad
... Opposite Parties/ Proforma Respondents
With
F.A. No. 167 of 2009
The Chief Executive Engineer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Right
Bank Thermal Power Station, Maithon, P.O. & P.S.- Maithon,
District- Dhanbad, through Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Joint Director
Personnel (Estate), D.V.C. Maithon Dam, P.O. & P.S. Maithon,
District- Dhanbad
... ... Opposite Party No. 4/Appellant
Versus
1. Uttam Kumar Mondal (died and substituted vide order dated
21.07.2010)
1(i) Radha Rani Mondal - widow
1(ii) Sharbani Mondal (Daughter) Minor
1(iii) Shreelata Mondal- (Daughter) Minor
2. Ashok Kumar Mondal,
3. Kishore Kumar Mondal,
All sons of Late Bishwanath Mondal, resident of Village-
Barahbendia, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad
... ... Applicants/Respondents
4. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
5. The Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad
... Opposite Parties/ Proforma Respondents
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
1
2026:JHHC:22176
—
For the Appellant : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Chiranjeev Mahto, Advocate
Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, AC to GP V
For the Claimants : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate
—
CAV on 21.04.2026 Pronounced on 27.07.2026
1. Both the first appeals have been filed against the common
Judgement dated 10.07.2008 and Decree sealed and signed on
23.07.2008 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in
L.A. Reference Case Nos.11/2004 and 12/2004 respectively on the
applications filed by the applicants / claimants under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act whereby and whereunder the learned court
enhanced the market rate of the acquired lands and further held that
the applicants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,500/- for bahal
land and Rs.5,000/- for other lands and allowed the reference cases in
favour of the claimants and directed the opposite parties to pay the
compensation amount after deduction of the award amount, if they
received. The learned court further held that the pleaders will also get
3% of the enhancement amount. Accordingly, both the first appeals
have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common
judgment.
2. The finding of the learned court while enhancing the
compensation is quoted as under: –
“9. On considering the above discussions and perusal of the
evidence of the witnesses which is on the records, I come to
the conclusion that the rate (market rate) should be
enhanced as Rs. 5000/- to 6000/- per decimals as the land is
important land as submitted by the evidence of witnesses in
their evidence and no any papers submitted by the O.P. for
the same and the applicant has filed Ext-1 for proving the
land. Hence the applicants are entitled to get a
compensation of Rs.5,500/- for bahal land and other land as
Rs.5000/- as flat. and the amount of compensation which
was awarded may be modified.
2
2026:JHHC:22176
10. In view of the discussions made above and also perused
the oral and documentary evidences, I come to the
conclusion that the applicants are entitled to get
compensation on the modified amount on the acquired land.
…………….”
Arguments of the appellant in both the cases
3. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that the lands
acquired in connection with both these cases are related to Mouza-
Punai @ Kashitand, Mouza No.110, P.S.- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad
and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 is dated 22.12.2001. The rate of compensation of the
acquired lands has been enhanced by the learned Land Acquisition
Judge, Dhanbad.
4. The Learned counsel further submitted that there is no cogent
evidence on the side of claimants who were seeking enhancement of
compensation against the acquired lands. There was only oral
evidence claiming that the land was bahal land and the market value
was Rs.10,000/- per decimal and the land was being sold @
Rs.10,000/- per decimal, but not a single document of the mouza
involved in this case was produced by the claimants.
5. He further submitted that one sale deed has been produced in
these two cases which is Sale Deed No.5591 of the year 2003 relating
to another mouza / Village namely, Pandra, but there is neither any
finding that the same was a comparable sale deed, nor there is any
evidence to show that the mouza was even adjoining to the acquired
lands or even the mouza involved in this case and the same was
certainly much beyond the date of acquisition involved in the present
cases.
6. Learned counsel submitted that once the claimants adduced oral
evidence that the property was being sold at Rs.10,000/- per decimal,
it was for them to prove this fact by producing sale deeds, but having
not produced any such sale deed, the oral evidence is of no
consequence.
3
2026:JHHC:22176
7. Learned counsel submitted that the onus was upon the
claimants to produce cogent materials seeking enhancement, but the
claimants miserably failed to produce and consequently, the
enhancement of compensation made in the present cases is without
any basis and the enhancement is fit to be set aside.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his
submissions:
(i) (1991) 4 SCC 195 (Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers
Ltd. -vs- State of Kerala) Paragraph- 10 and 15
(ii) (1995) 2 SCC 305 (P. Ram Reddy and Others -vs- Land
Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development
Authority, Hyderabad and Others) Paragraph- 9 and 12.
(iii) Civil Appeal No.5160 of 2013 (Ramanlal Deochand
Shah -vs- The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) decided on
05.07.2013.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that upon
conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, the case of the appellants
is squarely covered and the enhancement of compensation is fit to be
set-aside.
Arguments of the respondents (claimants) in both the cases.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand,
submitted that one documentary evidence was certainly produced,
though it was of the year 2003 and of a different mouza, but the
enhancement is not the same as mentioned in the exhibited sale deed.
He further submitted that other oral evidences were on record for the
purposes of enhancement and the Land Acquisition Officer has
applied his judicial mind to enhance the compensation and therefore,
it cannot be said that impugned judgment of enhancement of
compensation is bad in law. He submitted that only a meager amount
has been enhanced and therefore, enhancement of compensation does
not call for any interference.
4
2026:JHHC:22176
11. The sole point for determination in this case is as to whether
the learned court was justified in enhancing the rate of compensation
for the acquired land.
Findings of this Court.
12. The case of the claimants was that within Mouza Punai @
Kashitand, Mouza No. 110, P.S. Nirsa, Dist. Dhanbad, 61.43 acres of
Raiyati lands have been acquired by Land Acquisition Department
vide Notification No. 10/D.L.A. Dhan-DVC-3/2001-4445 R dt.
22.12.2001, Declaration No. D.L.A. Dhan-D.V.C.-13/2001-565 R dt.
31.01.2002, and after issuance of Notification u/s 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, proper inquiry was made by the District Land
Acquisition Officer (Collector), Dhanbad by starting L.A. proceeding
vide L.A. Case No. 25/95-96. After completion of inquiry, award u/s
11 was made by the Collector being Award No. 11 for Rs.
5,02,605.00 in L.A Reference case no. 11 of 2004 [ First Appeal No.
166 of 2009] and Award No. 41 for Rs. Rs.28,85,037.81 in L.A
Reference case no. 12 of 2004 [ First Appeal No. 167 of 2009]. The
Awardees have received their Awarded money under protest.
13. The claimants made out the following case for reference to the
court for determination of the market value of the acquired lands: –
a. The agricultural lands are the only source of livelihood of
the applicants, which have been acquired for installation of
DVC Right Bank Thermal Power Station, for which proper
and adequate compensation have not been paid to the
applicants according to the present market rate prevailing in
the locality.
b. The lands which have been acquired are situated near the
Maithon Town, Nirsa Town and Pandra Market, hence the
potentiality of the lands are very high, electric facilities are
available near those lands and are suitable for constructions
etc.
c. In the year 1953-54 vide Notification No. B/L-VII-1393/53-
4426 R dt. 7.12.1953 for installation of Damodar Valley
Corporation Maithon Dam Reservoir, lands of the5
2026:JHHC:22176applicants had been acquired and those lands were
submerged in the Maithon Dam Reservoir and few
remaining lands which are the only source of livelihood
have been acquired.
d. The lands which were/are acquired by DVC Right Bank
Thermal Power Station are first class Bahal paddy lands
which are situated by the side of a streamlet and there is
sufficient conveniences for irrigation and two crops in a
year produced easily on the lands, paddy, wheat and other
seasonal crops and vegetables are grown.
e. In the contiguous village Beldanga, Mouza No. 109, P.S.
Nirsa, where lands were acquired for the DVC Right Bank
Thermal Power Station under the same notification being
No. 10/D.L.A. Dhan-DVC-3/2001-4445 dt. 22.12.2001,
compensation for Bahal land i.e. 1st class paddy land was
given or provided at the rate of Rs. 3 lakhs per acre whereas
within Mouza Punai @ Kashitand, Mouza No. 110,
compensation for Bahal land, 1st class paddy land is
Awarded or provided at the rate of Rs. 2,70,000/- only
which is too low while the lands are of same nature.
f. The present market rate of the lands is Rs. 10,000/- per
decimal. District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad and
the Authority of DVC Right Bank Thermal Power Station
Maithon have not applied Judicial mind while determining
the valuation of the acquired lands in mouza Punai @
Kashitand, mouza no. 110, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad.
g. The LA Department have not paid compensation for the
trees and other construction or structures standing over the
lands which were acquired for DVC Right Bank Thermal
Power Station and applicants are seriously prejudiced and
suffering irreparable loss and injury and have been deprived
from proper and adequate compensation of their lands.
14. The State only filed attendance but did not file any written
statement.
6
2026:JHHC:22176
15. The DVC (opposite party no.4) filed written statement and
raised following objections: –
i. The present proceeding is not maintainable; if the
claimants have received compensation amount under
protest they be put to strict proof.
ii. The claimants have not produced any documents along
with their application showing that market price of
acquired land is more than Rs. 10,000/- per decimal and
such statement was denied; it is absolutely false to say
that potentiality of the land is very high and future
potentiality of land on assumption and presumption
cannot be looked into by the Court and compensation as
assessed by the State is correct.
iii. The statements made by the claimants were denied and it
was asserted that the claimants be put to strict proof of the
same.
16. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Periyar & Pareekanni Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC
195, it has been held that the transaction relating to the acquired land
of recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar
potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant
pieces of evidence. When the courts are called upon to fix the market
value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the
value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant
himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands.
In proof of the sale transaction, the relationship of the parties to the
transaction, the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the date of
the sale are to be looked into. These features would be established by
examining either the vendor or vendee and if they are not available,
the attesting witnesses who have personal knowledge of the
transaction etc. The original sale deed or certified copy thereof should
be tendered as evidence. The underlying principle to fix a fair market
value with reference to comparable sale is to reduce the element of
speculation. In a comparable sale the features are: (1) it must be
7
2026:JHHC:22176
within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; (2) it should
be a bona fide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired
or land adjacent to the land acquired and (4) it should possess similar
advantages. These should be established by adduction of material
evidence by examining as stated above the parties to the sale or
persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof
also would focus on the fact whether the transactions are genuine and
bona fide transactions. The prices fetched for similar land with similar
advantages and potentialities and the bona fide transactions of the sale
at time of preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best,
evidence of the market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted
to if the evidence of sale of similar land is not available. The prices
fetched for similar plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts
of land as the two are not comparable properties. Smaller plots always
would have special features like the urgent need of the buyer, the
advantageous situation, the like of the buyer etc.
A reference was also made to an earlier judgement where it was held
that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the burden of proving
that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is
inadequate lies upon the claimant, and he must show affirmatively
that the Collector had proceeded upon a wrong basis. The nature and
the burden of establishing that he was wrong, depends on the nature of
the enquiry held by him and it is equally well settled that where the
claimant leads no evidence to show that the conclusions reached in the
award were inadequate, or, that it offered unsatisfactory
compensation, the award has to be confirmed.
17. In the judgement of P. Ram Reddy v. HUDA, (1995) 2 SCC
305 it has been held that an acquired land could be regarded as that
which has a building potentiality, if such land, although was used on
the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for
agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date
even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or
in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial,
industrial or other buildings. Such possibility of user of the acquired
8
2026:JHHC:22176
land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture
or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of
inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on
record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or
made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as:
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-à-vis the city or the
town or village which had been growing in size because of its
commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other
kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the
buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the
case may be;
(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for
occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;
(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the
acquired land for building purposes;
(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building
plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or
close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health
care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the
acquired land which may become available to the occupiers
of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself
being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of
the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value
for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes
in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by
reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit.
When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of
the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate
or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the
acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its
market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to
such building potentiality.
It has also been held that the point as to whether the acquired land has
building potentiality or not, while has to be decided upon reference to
9
2026:JHHC:22176
the material to be placed on record, the market value of the acquired
land with building potentiality, is also required to be determined with
reference to the material to be placed on record or made available in
that regard by the parties concerned and not solely on surmises,
conjectures or pure guess.
18. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 5160 of 2013 reported in (2013) 14 SCC 50 (Ramanlal
Deochand Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra), it has been held that
it is trite that in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act on the question of adequacy of compensation determined by the
collector, the burden to prove that the collector’s award does not
correctly determine the amount of compensation payable to the
landowner is upon the owner concerned. It has also been held that it is
for the claimant to prove that the amount awarded by the Collector
needs enhancement, and if so, to what extent. The claimant can do so
by adducing evidence, whether oral or documentary which the
Reference Court would evaluate having regard to the provisions of
Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act while determining the
compensation payable to the owners. To that extent the claimant is in
the position of a plaintiff before the Court. It has been further held that
in the absence of any evidence to prove that the amount of award by
the Collector does not represent the true market value of the property
as on the date of the preliminary notification, the Reference Court will
be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement. It
has also been held that the Court cannot go by surmises and
conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role
of an Appellate Court and enhance the amount awarded by
reappraising the material that was collected and considered by the
Collector.
19. In the aforesaid judgement it has been further held that the law
is well settled vide judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Major
Pakhar Singh Atwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others“
reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 401 that a reference under section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award of the10
2026:JHHC:22176Land Acquisition Officer. It merely is an offer. The proceeding before
the Reference Court is of such a nature that it places the claimant in
the position of a plaintiff and the Reference Court is akin to a court of
original jurisdiction. It has been held in the said judgement that –
“…………. It is for the claimants to seek the determination of
proper compensation by producing sale deeds and examining
the vendors or the vendees as to passing of consideration
among them, the nearness of the lands sold to the acquired
lands, similarly of the lands sold and acquired and also by
adduction of other relevant and acceptable evidence.
…………………. Therefore, if the claimants intend to seek
higher compensation to the acquired land, the burden is on
them to establish by proof that the compensation granted by the
Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they are entitled to
higher compensation. That could be established only by
adduction of evidence of the comparable sale transactions of
the land acquired or the lands in the neighbourhood possessed
of similar potentiality or advantages…….”
20. The claimants examined 04 witnesses in support of their case.
AW-1 is Ashok Mandal (Applicant No.2), AW-2 is Hemapada
Hansda, AW-3 is Sitaram Mandal and AW-4 is Mantu Hembram.
21. AW-1 (Ashok Mandal) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he is the Applicant No.2 of the case. He further
stated that their ancestral lands situated over Mouza-Punai @
Kashitand, Mouza No.110, Thana- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad were
acquired for the Damodar Valley Corporation, Right Bank Thermal
Power Station, Maithon. He further stated that Maithon Bazar,
Chirkunda Bazar, Kumardhubi and Nirsa Bazar were situated around
their acquired lands and there was facility of road transport. There
were school- college, Maithon College, Electricity Line, etc. near the
acquired lands and therefore, its utility was very high. He further
stated that the rate of sale-purchase of the lands of the said mouza and
the nearby mouza was Rs.10,000/- per decimal at the time of
acquisition of the lands of Punai @ Kashitand and higher rate of
compensation was paid for the nearby villages by Right Bank Thermal
Power Station. They should have been given compensation at least @
Rs.10,000/- per decimal, but they were not given appropriate
11
2026:JHHC:22176
compensation. They were also not given compensation for the houses,
trees, etc. The acquired lands were the only means for their livelihood
and therefore, their claim is correct.
During cross-examination on behalf of the State Government, he
admitted that they had 08 acres and 80 ½ decimals of land at
Kashitand Mouza which were acquired for the thermal project of the
Maithon Right Bank Thermal Power Station. There were 08 acres of
bahal lands and 80 ½ decimals of kanali lands. They used to cultivate
03 acres of land themselves and the rest lands through labourers and
they used to get 600-650 Mans of paddy from the acquired lands. The
rate of paddy was Rs.100-120/- per Man in the village in the year
2003. The karmachari from the Land Acquisition Department had
inspected the acquired lands, but the wells and different kinds of trees
situated over the lands were not recorded. He was not given any
notice before inspection of the lands and therefore, he was not present
at the time of the inspection. He further admitted that the acquired
lands are situated at a distance of 7-8 kilometres from Chirkunda
Bazar, at a distance of 03 kilometres from Nirsa and at a distance of
04 kilometres from Maithon Bazar. They used to grow paddy, grams,
khesari, leaves and vegetables over the acquired lands. Kashitand
Primary School is situated at the adjacent and College is situated at a
distance of 04 kilometres from the acquired lands. Electric Line is
running adjacent to the acquired lands from Kashitand Mouza to
Lavghata. He further admitted that Rs.10,000/- per decimal was the
rate of sale of lands in the year 2003 and bahal lands were being sold
@ Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He also admitted that they have received
compensation @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre. They had total 08 trees over
the acquired lands, 03 were Sheesam trees, 03 were Peepal trees and
02 were Saal trees and all the trees were 40-50 years old. The house
situated over the acquired land was 10 feet long and 10 feet breadth
(10 feet x 10 feet). The opposite parties have paid compensation @
Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for the bahal lands of the adjacent mouza of the
acquired lands.
12
2026:JHHC:22176
During cross-examination on behalf of D.V.C., he admitted that
notice for acquisition of the lands was issued to them by the Land
Acquisition Department and they have received the compensation
amount from the Land Acquisition Department with objection. They
have not been paid any compensation by the D.V.C. He had not
enquired that the entire compensation amount for the lands was
transferred to the Government by the D.V.C.
22. AW-2 (Hemapada Hansda) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he knows the applicants and the ancestral raiyati
property of the applicants situated at Mouza- Punai @ Kashitand,
Mouza No.110, Thana- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad. The ancestral raiyati
lands of the applicants have been acquired by the District Land
Acquisition Office for the Damodar Valley Corporation, Right Bank
Thermal Power Station, Maithon. After issuance of the notification,
the Land Acquisition Department made an enquiry and prepared
award of the acquired land. Thereafter, notice under Section 12(2) was
issued in the name of the applicants and the applicants received the
compensation amount with objection in writing. He further stated that
the acquired lands of the applicants were bahal land in which paddy,
wheat and various vegetables were cultivated. The acquired lands of
the applicants were situated between Maithon Dam and one small
river and therefore, three-four crops were being cultivated every year.
He further stated that the lands of the applicants were situated
between Maithon Dam and Maithon Bazar and Chirkunda Bazar and
Nirsa Bazar. There was facility of road and electricity at some
distance from the acquired land and the acquired land was suitable for
construction of house and its utility was very high. He further stated
that at the time of acquisition, the sale- purchase value of the land of
the applicants situated at Punai @ Kashitand Village was Rs.10,000/-
per decimal, but Right Bank Thermal Power Station, Maithon paid
less compensation for the lands of Punai @ Kashitand Mouza in
comparison to other mouza. The applicants should have been given
compensation at least @ Rs.10,000/- per decimal, as the acquired
lands of the applicants were highly useful and were bahal land of first
13
2026:JHHC:22176
class and were the only means for their livelihood. The applicants
have not been paid appropriate compensation against the acquired
lands and therefore, their claim is correct.
During cross-examination on behalf of the State Government, AW-
2 admitted that the acquired land is situated at a distance of half
kilometre from his house and Kashitand Mouza is situated adjacent to
his village. He further admitted that the applicants have 27-28 Bigha
land at one place and all the lands have been acquired by the DVC. 2-
3 Bigha of the acquired lands are baid lands and the rest are bahal
lands and out of the acquired lands, he used to cultivate over one
bigha of Baid land and 6-7 bigha of bahal lands and he used to grow
130-140 Mans of paddy and used to give the half paddy to the
applicants. He used to grow 60-70 Mans of wheat every year from the
lands in which he used to cultivate. He further admitted that he has no
land of his own. He further admitted that Maithon Bazar was about
seven kilometres away and Nirsa Bazar was about five kilometres
away from the acquired lands. He also admitted that at that time, the
rate of the bahal land was Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He also admitted
that he had not done sale-purchase of land in the year 2003 and he has
said the rate of Rs.10,000/- on the basis of hearsay statements.
23. AW-3 (Sitaram Mandal) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating the same facts as stated by AW-2 (Hemapada
Hansda). During cross-examination on behalf of the State, he
admitted that his lands under Plot Nos. 294, 295 and 296 are situated
at Kashitand mouza which are situated at a distance of about 200
yards from the acquired lands. He further admitted that the acquired
lands are Bahal, kanali and tanr lands consisting of 15-16 bahal farms
and 4-5 baid farms. He also admitted that he has never sold any land
of the said mouza. He also admitted that river is situated adjacent to
the acquired lands.
During cross-examination on behalf of the DVC, he admitted that he
has no land adjacent to the acquired lands. The forest land of forest
department is situated after two plots of the acquired lands. He also
admitted that lands of 11 mouzas namely, Paludih, Kashitand,
14
2026:JHHC:22176
Madandih, Sana, Palharpur, Bandhtola, Kamardih, Dambhui,
Ratanpur, Beldanga and other two mouza have been acquired for
D.V.C. and the applicants have filed the case for enhancement of the
compensation amount. He further admitted the he used to cultivate the
acquired lands for 30 years over the Bahal and Kanali lands. He
further admitted that the river channel is situated adjacent to the
acquired lands and Nirsa Bazar is situated at a distance of 6 kilometres
from the acquired lands and Nirsa-Jamtara Pucca Road is situated
adjacent to the acquired lands. There is electricity supply line through
the acquired lands.
24. AW-4 (Mantu Hembram) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating the same facts as stated by AW-2 (Hemapada
Hansda) and AW-3 (Sitaram Mandal). During cross-examination, he
admitted that he used to go to the farms of the applicants for
cultivation, which were bahal lands. There were 20 farms over the
acquired lands. He further admitted that paddy, wheat and vegetables
were being grown over the acquired lands. The acquired lands are
situated adjacent to the Jamtara Road and is at a distance of half
kilometre from the village. At that time, electric supply line from
Ratanpur to Kashitand was running through the lands and the lands
are situated at a distance of half kilometre from Barakar River. He
further admitted that the rate of bahal land was Rs.10,000/- per
decimal at that time, but he had not done any sale-purchase of lands.
25. The appellant did not produce any oral and documentary
evidence.
26. This court finds that all the four witnesses of the claimants have
made only oral statements that the land was valued @ Rs. 10,000/- per
decimal, but have not referred to any sale deed much less, sale deed
no. 5591 dated 01.08.2003 which was marked as exhibit -1 by
tendering to the court on 29.05.2007 that too after all the witnesses
were already examined, cross examined and discharged. The order-
sheet of the learned court reveals that the four witnesses of the
claimants were examined prior to 29.05.2007.
15
2026:JHHC:22176
27. Moreover, the acquisition of land in the present case is of the
year 2001 and the exhibit 1 is dated 01.08.2003 that too from another
village. Since the witnesses of the claimants have not referred to
exhibit-1 during their oral evidence, there is no evidence to even
suggest as to whether the concerned village, to which exhibit-1
relates, is even adjoining to the Mouza-Punai @ Kashitand, Mouza
No.110, involved in this case. Upon perusal of the exhibit-1, it
appears that it is of a different mouza, that is, mouza Paundra bearing
mouza no. 95. Further, the area sold through exhibit-1 is only 4 and ½
decimals of baid land for total value of Rs.25,000/- [Rs.5555.55 per
decimal]. Further other parameters to test as to whether exhibit-1
could be treated as an exemplar sale have not come in the evidence of
the witnesses of the claimants. In order to use a sale deed as exemplar
sale deed for arriving at the market value of the acquired land, it has
to be compared in the light of date of acquisition of land, its location,
size, potentiality and usage vis-à-vis the exemplar sale deed.
28. This court finds that the aforesaid sale deed cannot be relied
upon to fix the quantum of compensation as the deed is of different
mouza whose distance from the acquired land has not come during
evidence as this deed (exhibit-1) was not even referred to in the oral
evidence of the claimants and further, the deed dated 01.08.2003
(exhibit-1) is of much subsequent date from the date of notification
issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 in the
present case.
29. The fact also remains that the witnesses have stated that the
lands were being purchased and sold at the time of acquisition at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- per decimal which they claimed to be the market
value of the acquired land, but have failed to produce any sale deed,
much less any comparable sale deed to support their statements. If the
aforesaid, as claimed by the claimants, were true, they ought to have
supported their statement by producing the sale deeds, which they
failed to produce. Rather, the claimants have completely failed to
make out a case for enhancement of compensation. It was the case of
the claimants that all the necessary enquiries were done and
16
2026:JHHC:22176
procedures were followed before for assessing and offering
compensation to the claimants for the acquired land, which they
received under protest.
30. With respect to the location of the acquired property , the
witnesses of the claimants claimed that the property is situated near
the market namely, Maithon Bazar, Chirkunda Bazar and Nirsa Bazar.
However, in cross examination of A.W-3, it has come that the river
channel is situated adjacent to the acquired lands and Nirsa Bazar is
situated at a distance of 6 kilometres from the acquired lands and
Nirsa-Jamtara Pucca Road is situated adjacent to the acquired lands.
There is electricity supply line through the acquired lands. In cross
examination of A.W-2 it has come that Maithon Bazar was about 7
kilometres away and Nirsa Bazar was about 5 kilometres away from
the acquired lands. He also admitted that he had not done sale-
purchase of land in the year 2003 and he has said the rate of
Rs.10,000/- on the basis of hearsay statements He further stated that
the lands of the applicants were situated between Maithon Dam and
Maithon Bazar and Chirkunda Bazar and Nirsa Bazar. There was
facility of road and electricity at some distance from the acquired land
and the acquired land was suitable for construction of house and its
utility was very high. A.W-1 during his cross examination has stated
that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of 7-8 kilometres
from Chirkunda Bazar, at a distance of 03 kilometres from Nirsa and
at a distance of 04 kilometres from Maithon Bazar. They used to grow
paddy, grams, khesari, leaves and vegetables over the acquired lands.
Kashitand Primary School is situated at the adjacent and College is
situated at a distance 04 kilometres from the acquired lands. Electric
Line is running adjacent to the acquired lands from Kashitand Mouza
to Lavghata.
31. The impugned judgement reveals that the learned court, after
having recorded the case of the respective parties and having recorded
the examination and cross examination of the witnesses of the
claimants as the State or DVC did not lead any evidence, straightaway
arrived at the conclusion that the rate (market rate) should be
17
2026:JHHC:22176
enhanced as Rs. 5000/- to 6000/- per decimals as the land is important
land as submitted by the evidence of witnesses in their evidence and
no any papers were submitted by the O.P. for the same and the
claimants had filed Exhibit-1 for proving the land. Hence the learned
court held that the claimants were entitled to get compensation at
enhanced rate of Rs.5,500/- for Bahal land and other land as Rs.5000/-
as flat.
32. The findings of the learned court to enhance compensation by
holding that the land was important land is vague and without any
discussions of the materials on record. The claimants were seeking
enhancement of compensation primarily on the ground that the
acquired lands were near the three markets, but such stand was
completely demolished through their cross examination, which as
discussed above, reveals that the markets were at considerable
distance from the acquired lands. Further, the learned court referred
to exhibit-1 for enhancement of compensation without even
discussing exhibit-1 as to whether it could be treated as comparable
sale deed with respect to the acquired lands. As discussed above, the
exhibit-1 was of different mouza and was of the year 2003 and was
for a small land of 4 and ½ decimals and the same was not referred to
by any of the witnesses but was simply tendered and marked exhibit 1
after the witnesses of the claimants were already examined. The
details with respect to exhibit-1 have already discussed above. The
learned court while enhancing the compensation has also recorded
that no documents were produced by the opposite parties and has
failed to consider that the claimants were required to be treated as
plaintiffs and the initial onus was upon the claimants to produce
cogent evidence to demonstrate that the compensation awarded was
not adequate, but in the instant case the claimants failed to discharge
their initial onus also. This court is of the considered view that the
entire approach of the learned court in enhancing the compensation by
the impugned judgement is ex-facie perverse when seen in the light of
the aforesaid judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed
above.
18
2026:JHHC:22176
33. In the present case the claimants were seeking enhancement of
compensation and in view of the aforesaid judgements they were
having the status of plaintiff before the reference court and it was for
them to prove by evidence that the compensation offered by the
Collector was inadequate and less than the market value of the
acquired property and also prove through evidence the market value
of the property and the extent of enhancement of compensation they
were seeking before the court. The claimants being the plaintiffs had
the initial burden to prove that the compensation as offered by the
collector was inadequate and not as per market value of the acquired
property.
34. This Court is of the considered view that the claimants had
miserably failed to lead any cogent evidence for the purposes of
enhancement of compensation or to even demonstrate that the
compensation awarded was less than the market value of the acquired
land and they completely failed to discharge their initial onus to show
that the compensation arrived at by the Collector and offered to them
which they accepted under protest was inadequate in any manner.
This would be the position in the light of the judgments, which have
been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, whose ratio has been fully discussed above. It has been
clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above, that
the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff before the Court and in
the absence of any evidence to prove that the amount of award by the
Collector does not represent the true market value of the property as
on the date of the preliminary notification, the Reference Court will be
helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement as the
court cannot go by surmises and conjectures while answering the
reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate Court and
enhance the amount awarded by reappraising the material that was
collected and considered by the Collector. It has also been held that it
is for the claimants to seek the determination of proper compensation
by producing sale deeds and examining the vendors or the vendees as
19
2026:JHHC:22176
to passing of consideration among them, the nearness of the lands sold
to the acquired lands, similarity of the lands sold and acquired and
also by adduction of other relevant and acceptable evidence.
Therefore, if the claimants intend to seek higher compensation for the
acquired land, the burden is on them to establish by proof that the
compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate
and they are entitled to higher compensation. That could be
established only by adduction of evidence of the comparable sale
transactions of the land acquired or the lands in the neighbourhood
possessed of similar potentiality or advantages.
35. Considering the evidences placed on record by the
claimants/plaintiffs, this court is of the considered view that the
claimants having completely failed to discharge their initial onus
through cogent evidence that the compensation offered to them was
inadequate or was not as per the market value of the acquired
property, they were not entitled for enhancement of compensation. In
such circumstances, there was no occasion for the learned court to
enhance the compensation.
36. Accordingly, the enhancement of compensation by the
impugned judgement and award is set-aside.
37. These First Appeals are accordingly allowed.
38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
39. Let the records received from the learned court concerned be
sent back.
40. Let this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court
through “Fax/E-mail”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of Pronouncement:27.07.2026
Pankaj/-
Date of Uploading: 28.07.2026
AFR
20
