Jharkhand High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Radha Rani Mandal on 27 July, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:22175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 146 of 2010
The Executive Engineer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Right Bank
Thermal Power Station, Maithon, P.O. & P.S.- Maithon, District-
Dhanbad, through Sri Yogendra Prasad, Son of Late Sheo Nandan
Prasad, Joint Director of Personnel (Estate), DVC, Maithon, P.O. P.S.
Maithon, district- Dhanbad, resident of Qr. No. Class-II/20, P.O.
Maithon Dam, P.S. Maithon, District- Dhanbad.
... ... Opposite Party No. 4/Appellant
Versus
1. Radha Rani Mandal, Widow of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal
2. Srilata Kumari, Daughter of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal
3. Shrabani Kumari, Daughter of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal
Legal heirs of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal,
No. 1 to 3 Residents of Village- Barah Bendia, P.O. & P.S.- Nirsa,
District- Dhanbad
4. Ashok Kumar Mondal
5. Kishore Kumar Mondal
Both sons of Late Bishwanath Mondal, resident of village- Barah
Bendia, P.O. P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad
... ... Applicants/Respondents
6. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi
7. The Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. P.S. and district Dhanbad
8. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. P.S. and
district- Dhanbad
... ... Opposite Parties/ Proforma Respondents
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Appellant : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Chiranjeev Mahto, Advocate
Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : 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. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated
09.04.2010 and Decree sealed and signed on 24.04.2010 passed by the
learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case
No.07/2007 on the application filed by the applicants / claimants
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act whereby and
whereunder the learned court enhanced the market rate and
compensation of the acquired land as Rs.5,500/- per decimal for Bahal
1
2026:JHHC:22175
land and Rs.3,000/- per decimal for Baid land and allowed the
reference case in favour of the claimants and directed the O.P. Nos.1
to 3 to pay the compensation amount within period as per law, after
deduction of the award amount, if the applicants received. The learned
court further held that the pleaders will also get 3% of the
enhancement amount.
2. The finding of the learned court while enhancing the
compensation is quoted as under:-
“10. On considering the above discussions, facts of the case
and evidence of the applicants witnesses which is on the
record, I come to the conclusion that the market rate of the
acquired land may be enhanced as the land is bahal and baid
land and the compensation amount was paid to the
applicants is in less amount as the land was situated at the
place of market and the enhancement amount may be fixed
as 5,500/- for bahal land and 3,000/- for baid land as per
decimal of the land, and in my opinion the awarded amount
is hereby modified as Rs. 5,500/- per decimal for bahal land
and Rs. 3,000/- per decimal for baid land.
11. In view of the above discussions and after perusal of the
evidence of the witnesses I come to the conclusion that the
applicants are entitled to get compensation on the modified
amount of the acquired land. Accordingly, it is hereby
ordered:-…..” (Emphasis supplied)Arguments of the appellant
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land
acquired in connection with this case is related to Mouza- Palurdih,
Mouza No.33, P.S.- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad and after issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1894”), L.A. Case No.3/2002-
03 was initiated and after completion of enquiry under Section 11 of
the Act of 1894, the Award was prepared by the Collector on
28.09.2005. The rate of compensation of the acquired land has been
enhanced by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad.
2
2026:JHHC:22175
4. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case, no sale
deed was exhibited and the enhancement is on oral statements made
by the witnesses who claimed that at the time of acquisition, the
property was being purchased @ Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He further
submitted that it was for the claimants to produce documents to
support their statements, but no such exemplar sale deed has been
produced. Learned counsel also submitted that the basis of
enhancement is without any cogent evidence and it is based on guess
work and therefore, the impugned judgment enhancing the amount of
compensation is perverse and calls for interference.
5. 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
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of
the appellant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgements of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and enhancement of compensation is fit to be
set-aside.
Arguments of the claimants (respondents)
7. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand,
submitted that admittedly no documentary evidence was produced by
way of exemplar sale deed, but the order of enhancement, even if
based on oral evidence, cannot be said to be based on no evidence and
therefore, it cannot be said that impugned judgment of enhancement
of compensation is bad in law. He further submitted that only a
meager amount has been enhanced and therefore, enhancement of
compensation does not call for any interference.
3
2026:JHHC:22175
8. 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
9. The case of the applicants (claimants) before the learned court
was that lands within mouza Palurdih Mouza no. 33 P.S. Nirsa, Dist-
Dhanbad were acquired for installation of Damodar Valley
Corporation, Right Bank Thermal Power Station. 1.01 acres of Raiyati
lands have been acquired by land Acquisition Department. After
issuance of Notification u/s 4, proper enquiry was made by the
District Land Acquisition Officer (collector) Dhanbad by starting L.A.
Proceeding vide L.A. Case no. 3/2002-03 and after completion of
enquiry, Award u/s 11 of the Act of 1894 have been prepared on
28.9.2005 vide Award no. 15 for Rs. 4,86,220.00 paise in the names
of the claimants. The compensation was for Raiyati lands recorded as
under-
Mouza Palurdih Mouza no. 33
Khata no.1 plot no.1138 area 0.01 decimals;
plot no.1139 area 0.03 decimal
plot no. 1140 area 0.97 decimal
Total 1.01 acres.
Notice u/s 12(2) was issued in the names of the claimants on
28.09.2005 fixing the date for making payment of the Awarded
money which was received under protest on 03.10.2005 vide cheque
no. A.H. 986535, Rs. 4,86,220.00.
10. The claimants made out the following case for reference to the
court for determination of compensation as per fair market value of
the acquired lands: –
a. The aforesaid agricultural lands were the only source of
livelihood of the claimants for which proper and adequate
compensation was not paid according to the present Market
rate prevailing in the locality.
b. The acquired lands were said to be situated amidst or vicinity
of Maithon Dam and town Nirsa and Pandra Market and the
lands were 1st class paddy lands over which 3 crops were4
2026:JHHC:22175grown every year as there was facility of irrigation from
Maithon Dam Reservior.
c. The potentiality of the lands was very high;
d. There were electric facilities available near the acquired lands
which were suitable for construction of house premises.
e. Previously in the year 1953-54 vide notification dated
7.12.1953 lands of the claimants were acquired for installation
of Damodar Valley Corporation, Maithon Dam Reservior and
the present acquired lands were the only source of livelihood.
f. In the contiguous village Beldanga, Mouza No. 109, P.S.
Nirsa, where lands were acquired for DVC Right Bank
Thermal Power station under the Notification being
No.10/D.L.A.DHAN-DVC.3/2001-4445 R dt. 22.12.2001
compensation for Bahal lands i.e. 1st class paddy land was
given or provided at higher valuation whereas within Mouza
Palaurdih, Mouza No.33, P. S. Nirsa, compensation for Bahal
land i.e., 1st class paddy land which was awarded or provided
was very low while the lands were of same nature and
character.
g. The market rate of the acquired lands was Rs.10,000/- per
decimals.
h. The District Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) Dhanbad
and the authority of DVC Right Bank Thermal Power Station,
Maithon did not apply judicial mind while determining the
valuation of the acquired lands. The land acquisition
department did not pay proper and adequate compensation for
the trees and other construction or structures standing over the
acquired lands.
i. The claimants were seriously prejudiced and suffered
irreparable loss and injury and were deprived from proper and
adequate compensation for their lands.
j. With aforesaid averments and background, the claimants
prayed for reference to the court for determination of fair
market value of the acquired property and the reference was
made to the court.
11. State only filed attendance, but no written statement was filed.
12. The written statement was filed by the DVC who raised the
following points:-
I. The reference was not maintainable. It was not known to
them as to whether the claimants had received the
compensation offered under protest and the claimants be
subjected to strict proof thereof; there was no whisper5
2026:JHHC:22175regarding receiving the amount under protest on 03.10.2005
or any other date by the applicants at any point of time.
II. The compensation paid was as per market price of the
acquired land on the relevant period. The rate of different
category of land was decided by the Deputy Commissioner,
Dhanbad and approval from the Government was taken.
III. Every land owner accepted the price of the land fixed by
the Deputy Commissioner and since then no application
alleging less fixation of price of land price was received.
IV. The rate of different category of land so fixed by the
Deputy Commissioner on the relevant period was on higher
side and as such Revenue Department of Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi sought clarification for fixing such
higher price of the land, to which Deputy Commissioner
replied and after due approval from Revenue Department,
payment action was taken by the Land Acquisition Office.
V. No land in the vicinity of the project was/is giving 3 crops
and Nirsa is far away, around 8 kilometers from Palodih
and Pandra market, which is very small one, is also 5
kilometers away from the acquired land.
VI. It is also not a fact that the land was situated at Road side
rather it was situated in interior area and as such claim
made by the claimants were absolutely false. Most of the
lands were non-fertile and Tand land (barren land).
VII. It was asserted that Beldanga mouza is on the road side and
was having facility of High School in that area and the land
may be more valued than the area in question that is
Paludih Mouza.
The figure mentioned of the present market rate that is Rs.
10,000/- per dec. is absolutely false and baseless and no
such rate was existed anywhere around at the relevant
period when the land was acquired.
VIII. It was absolutely false to say that the land Acquisition
Department did not pay adequate compensation for the trees
and houses standing on Raiyati land, rather District
authorities had paid sufficient compensation for the houses
and infructuous on Raiyati land.
13. The award prepared by the collector reveals that out of 101
decimals of the acquired land, 100 decimals were Bahal Land and 1
decimal was Baid land and the compensation for Bahal land was fixed
at Rs. 3000/- per decimal and the compensation of Baid land was
fixed at Rs. 2000/- per decimal and various statutory amounts were
6
2026:JHHC:22175
also included to come to the total compensation as awarded by the
collector which was received under protest by the claimants.
14. 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
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
7
2026:JHHC:22175
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.
15. 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
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-Ã -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;
8
2026:JHHC:22175
(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
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.
16. 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
9
2026:JHHC:22175
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.
17. 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 the
Land 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 of10
2026:JHHC:22175the land acquired or the lands in the neighbourhood possessed
of similar potentiality or advantages…….”
18. The claimants examined 03 witnesses in support of their case.
AW-1 is Sitaram Mandal, AW-2 is Ashok Mandal (Application No.2)
and AW-3 is Dhwajadhari Hansda.
19. AW-1 (Sitaram Mandal) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he knows the applicants and the ancestral raiyati
property of the applicants situated at Mouza- Palurdih, Mouza No.33,
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 preparation of award in the name of the
applicants, notice under Section 12(2) was issued and the applicants
received the compensation amount with objection in writing. He
further stated that the acquired lands of the applicants were Bahal land
of first class in which paddy, wheat, etc. were cultivated. He further
stated that the lands of the applicants were situated between Maithon
Bazar and Nirsa Bazar. He further stated that at the time of
acquisition, the sale- purchase value of the ancestral land of the
applicants situated at Mouza Palurdih was Rs.10,000/- per decimal,
but appropriate compensation against the acquired lands have not
been paid to the applicants and therefore, the claim of the applicants is
correct.
During cross-examination by State, he stated that the acquired lands
are 1.01 acres and he has cultivated the acquired lands. He also stated
that he had sown three crops i.e. paddy, wheat and vegetables
according to the seasons and the rate of the nearby lands of the
acquired lands is more than Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He denied the
suggestion that the compensation received from the Government is
appropriate. During cross-examination by D.V.C, he admitted that
the applicants are his relatives in village relation. He also admitted
that his 76 decimals of land of Paludih Mouza has also been acquired
and he has received Rs.2,66,000/- and Rs.86,000/- approximately for
both the plots. He has not filed any L.A. case against payment of less
11
2026:JHHC:22175
compensation to him. He further admitted that he has not seen any
sale deed of Paludih Mouza in which the value of the land has been
assessed as Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He also admitted that the
acquired land is Bahal land of first class and is situated at a distance of
7-8 kilometres from Maithon Bazar and Nirsa Bazar. There is no
Bahal land inside the bazar. He denied the suggestion that the State
Government has paid the compensation amount more than the market
value of the acquired lands in the year 2001.
20. AW-2 (Ashok Mandal) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he is the Applicant No.2 of the case and he
knows the acquired lands bearing Plot Nos.1138, 1139 and 1140
measuring a total area of 1.01 acres situated over Mouza-Palurdih,
Mouza No.33, Thana- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad. The acquired lands
are Bahal dhani lands of first class. The Jharkhand Government has
acquired the lands for Maithon Right Bank Thermal Power Station.
The award of the acquired lands has been prepared in the name of all
the three brothers and the District Land Acquisition Officer has paid
the award amount to them, but the award amount is less than the
present market rate. They have accepted the award amount with
objection and they have filed the objection petition for enhancement
of the award amount. He further stated that the acquired land is Bahal
land in which two crops were produced and there was facility for
irrigation. There were Sakhuwa, Sangwan, Neem and Arjun trees over
the embankment of the acquired lands. Maithon Bazar, Nirsa Bazar
and Chirkunda Bazar were situated around the acquired lands and all
the facilities were there for transportation. He further stated that the
present rate of sale-purchase of bahal land in Paludih Mouza is
Rs.10,000/- per decimal. The acquired lands were the only means for
their livelihood and due to acquisition of the same, they were facing
starvation. He stated that they have not been paid appropriate
compensation for the acquired lands and therefore, their claim is
correct. He further stated that less rate of compensation has been paid
in Palurdih Mouza by the Maithon Right Bank Thermal Power Station
in comparison to the other nearby mouza. During cross-examination,
12
2026:JHHC:22175
he admitted that he had informed the Amin at the time of
measurement that the land is bahal land. He also admitted that he had
informed the officers at the time of acquisition that the rate of the land
is Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He has not produced any document in
court to show the aforesaid assessment. He denied the suggestion that
the Government has paid the compensation of the acquired lands on
higher rate than the rate at that time.
21. AW-3 (Dhwajadhari Hansda) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he knows the applicants. He stated the same facts
as stated by AW-1 (Sitaram Mandal). During cross-examination, he
admitted that the acquired lands are bahal lands situated adjacent to
his house and its value was Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He used to grow
paddy and wheat over the acquired lands and he has cultivated the
lands. His lands are situated adjacent to the acquired lands, but he has
not sold any land in Palurdih Mouza, nor he has been a witness in any
sale of land of any other person within that mouza. He admitted that
the villagers informed him that the value of the acquired lands is
Rs.10,000/- per decimal.
22. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
23. This court finds that all the three 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 23.01.2010 that too after all the witnesses
were already examined, cross examined and discharged. The order-
sheet of the learned court reveals that the three witnesses of the
claimants were examined prior to 23.01.2010.
24. 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- Palurdih involved in this case.
Further other parameters to test as to whether exhibit-1 could be
13
2026:JHHC:22175
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-Ã -vis the exemplar sale deed.
25. From the records of the court concerned, this court finds as per
order dated 23.01.2010 passed by the learned court, that a document
was produced before the court being sale deed no. 5591 dated
01.08.2003 which has been marked as exhibit-1. Upon perusal of the
exhibit-1, it appears that it is of a different mouza, that is, mouza
Paundra bearing mouza no. 95. Whereas, the acquired property in the
present case is in mouza Palurdih bearing mouza no. 33. 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]. 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 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.
26. 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
procedures were followed before for assessing and offering
compensation to the claimants for the acquired land, which they
received under protest.
14
2026:JHHC:22175
27. 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 compensation awarded was less as
the property was situated in the market place and enhanced the
compensation amount as mentioned above.
The finding of the learned court that the land was situated at the
market place is ex-facie perverse in view of the fact that although
A.W. 1 stated in his evidence-in-chief that the acquired land was
situated at Maithan Bazar and Nirsa bazar, but during his cross
examination in paragraph 18, he has clearly stated that the land was
situated at a distance between 7-8 K.M. from Maithan Bazar and Nirsa
Bazar.
The finding of the learned court that the property was situated at the
market place has been completely demolished by the cross
examination of A.W. 1 which has not been taken note of by the learned
Court and while recording that the property was situated in market
place in order to enhance the compensation amount, the learned court
has committed perversity.
28. 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.
29. 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
15
2026:JHHC:22175
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
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.
30. 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
16
2026:JHHC:22175
property, they were not entitled for enhancement of compensation. In
such circumstances, there was no occasion for the learned court to
enhance the compensation.
31. Accordingly, the enhancement of compensation by the
impugned judgement and award is set-aside.
32. This First Appeal is accordingly allowed.
33. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
34. Let the records received from the learned court concerned be
sent back.
35. 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
17
