JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON LOK NATH MAHTO AND ORS. V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

RANCHI, India, Sept. 24 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 25:

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This first appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29th March 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II (Senior Division), Seraikella in Reference Case No. 08 of 1989.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation with respect to the acquisition of land. He has submitted that the State Government had issued declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide declaration dated 16.04.1964 by which total area of land measuring about 112.2 acres of village Dindli within police Station Adityapur, District Singhbhum.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with the same land acquisition proceedings in Civil Appeals Nos. 1005-6 of 1988 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10341 and 10015 of 1987) decided on 21.03.1988 reported in AIR 1988 SC 2134 (Bihar State Housing Board, State of Bihar & Others vs. Ban Bihari Mahto & Others) and it was held therein that the compensation for the acquisitions should be paid as if the acquisition were made on 01.03.1988. The learned counsel submits that the reference of this SLP and the fact that the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been given in very first paragraph of the impugned judgment.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the total acquired land involved in the present case is 6.96 acres. He has submitted that as is apparent from the petition being L.A. Case No. 08 of 1989 filed by the present appellant in Land Acquisition Case No. 09/1964-65 award No. 5B dated 20.09.1988 that the land mentioned in Schedule-A thereof along with the property in Schedule-B which consisted of trees and house were acquired. He has submitted that the compensation as fixed was on much lower side and accordingly a reference was made which was numbered as Reference Case No. 08/1989, so far as the present appeal is concerned.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that number of sale deeds were produced before the learned court but all the sale deeds were rejected and all the oral evidences were found to be not reliable and ultimately the learned court has refused to enhance the compensation.

7. The learned counsel has submitted that while considering the materials on record, so far as the documentary evidences are concerned, the learned court has referred specifically to Exhibit 1/3 which was sale deed No. 1104 of 31.03.1989. He has submitted that even this sale deed along with other sale deed were refused to be considered as exemplar sale by observing that the land under those sale deeds is not adjoining to the land involved in this case. The learned counsel has submitted that property in the said deed was of the same mouza i.e. Dindli within Police Station Adityapur and the land acquired in the present case was a part of acquisition of large chunk of land of total of 112.2 acres. He has submitted that the reason assigned by the learned court to reject the aforesaid sale deed exhibit-1/3 is not in accordance with the law, inasmuch as, the exemplar sale deed need not be adjoining land, it could be of the same mouza.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BM8UAFcX%2Fbx8BQkj%2B6n0rQY5yV6FautRnE9q9NpHvAU2&caseno=FA/152/2012&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010247732012&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.