IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FA No.349 of 1995
The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
Versus
1. Kameshwar Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh,
Resident of Village- Nasibuchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
Applicant-Respondent.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
......Respondent.
With
FA No.379 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Sujit Kumar, Son of Brij Ballabh Singh,
Resident of Village- Bhudunchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
......Respondent.
With
FA No.383 of 1995
The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
Versus
1. Dhirendra Kumar Son of Brij Ballab Singh,
Resident of Village- Bhudunchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
.......Respondent.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
....Respondent.
With
FA No.354 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
Appellants.
Versus
Smt. Chhuhoriya Devi w/o Lal Kishan Paswan, D/o Jhakri Paswan,
resident of village Rajpur, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
With
FA No.351 of 1995
The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
Versus
1Kishori Yadav, Son of Hiraman Yadav,
Resident of Village- Rajpura, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
Applicant-Respondent.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
-2-
......Respondent.
With
FA No.350 of 1995
The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
Versus
1. Shhaman Singh, Son of Murat Singh,
Resident of Village- Nisbunchakchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
Applicant-Respondent.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
.......Respondent.
With
FA No.380 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
......Appellants.
Versus
Pappu Singh, @ Dhananjay Singh. S/o Sachidanand Singh,
Resident of Village- Bhudunchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
....Respondent.
With
FA No.356 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Union of India through Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway,
Calcutta.
....... Appellants.
Versus
Ramchandra Singh Son of Munshi Singh,
Resident of Village- Rajpura, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
......Respondent.
With
FA No.357 of 1995
The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
Versus
1. Basudeo Prasad, son of Late Jaggu Yadav
Resident of Village- Rajpura, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
.....Applicant-Respondent.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
........ Respondent.
With
FA No.381 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
.........Appellants.
Versus
-3-
Kumari Punami, D/o Brij Ballabh Singh,
Resident of Village- Bhudunchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
..........Respondent.
With
FA No.287 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. The Union of India through Dy. General Manager, Eastern
Railway, Calcutta.
....Appellants.
Versus
Rameshwar Yadav, son of Chhotu Yadav,
Resident of Village- Nisibuchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
.....Respondent.
With
FA No.311 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
..... Appellants.
Versus
1. Raj Ballav Singh, son of Ram Pd. Singh,
2. Raj Nandeshwar Singh, son of Ram Pd. Singh,
Resident of Village- Budhuchak, P.S.Fatwah, District-Patna.
....Respondents.
With
FA No.374 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
Appellant.
Versus
1. Dhuri Yadav son of Raj Nandan Yadav,
Resident of Village- Nasibuchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
Respondents.
With
FA No.360 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
......Appellant.
Versus
1. Mostt. Sukhia Devi W/o Late Parmeshwar Prasad,
2. Nagina Yadav
3. English Yadav
4. Moti Yadav
sons of Late Parmeshwar Yadav.
5. Samalta Devi d/o Late Parmeshwar Yadav
-4-
Resident of Village- Rajpura, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna
6. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
.......Respondents
With
FA No.361 of 1995
. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
..... Appellants.
Versus
1. Lallan Prasad, son of Late Lakhraj Rai
2. Sidheshwar Pd. son of Late Lakheraj Rai,
3. Anil Kumar S/o Late Lakharaj Rai
Resident of Village- Rajpura, P.S.Fatwah, District-Patna.
....Respondents
With
FA No.364 of 1995
The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
Versus
1. Barhu Yadav, son of Jhagru Yadav
Resident of Village- Nisubuchak, P.S. Fatwah, District-Patna.
Applicant-Respondent.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
.....Respondent.
With
FA No.307 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Dy. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta.
..... Appellants.
Versus
Narsingh Singh , son of Late Keshwar Singh
Resident of Village- Nohta, P.S.Fatwah, District-Patna.
....Respondent
With
FA No.263 of 1995
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite party-Appellant.
2. Union of India through the Dy. General Manager, Eastern
Railway, Calcutta.
..... Appellants.
Versus
Bachan Singh Son of Chandrma Singh
Resident of Village- Nasibuchak, P.S.Fatwah, District-Patna.
....Respondent
-----------
-5-
For appellant-State : Mr. Narmdeshwar Jha, A.A.G.-VII
Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, G.A.-II
Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, G.A.-VI
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, G.P. XIV.
For appellant-Railway : Mr.Sabbir Ahmad, Advocate.
For respondents-claimants : Mr. R.C.Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate.
Mr. P.C.Yadav, Advocate.
Mrs. Sheela Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate.
-------
P R E S E N T: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT
(26.03.2010)
Dipak Misra, C.J.-
In this batch of appeals, the challenge is to the award
dated 26.11.1994 passed by the learned Special Land
Acquisition Judge, III, Patna in L.A.Case No.1 of 1993 and
other connected cases.
2. A notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for acquisition
of 74.515 acres of land situate in village Raipura, P.S. Fatwah,
District-Patna for construction of Railway Godown. The Land
Acquisition Officer determined the price at Rs.2403/- per katha.
The awardees not being satisfied with the same filed an
-6-
application for reference to the Civil Court and the Land
Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Civil Court.
3. Before the Civil Court, it was contended that the
claimants were entitled to Rs.50,000/- per katha as that was the
price at the time of acquisition. It was also contended that the
Land Acquisition Officer had not taken into consideration the
documents on record and had arbitrarily determined the price.
4. Before the Reference Judge, number of witnesses
were examined on behalf of the claimants and documents were
exhibited to highlight how the transactions were made which
would show the land was sold at much higher rate.
5. The learned Reference Judge referred to the sale
deeds vide Ext.-1 series produced on behalf of the awardees.
Ext.-1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.04.1989 in
respect of Survey Plot No.1029 of Village Raipura, whereby
one katha of land was sold for Rs.10,000/-. Vide Ext.-1/A, 1/3rd
katha was sold at Rs.8,000/-. Ext.-1/B is the sale deed by which
an area of 5 kathas was sold for Rs.45,000/-. Ext.-C is a sale
deed by which one katha of land was sold at Rs.11,000/-. He
has also referred to Exts. A, B and C, the valuation report,
valuation khatiyan and the sale statements on which the Land
Acquisition Judge has relied.
-7-
6. It is worth noting the Land Acquisition Officer had
awarded Rs.2403/- per katha relying on the three documents,
namely, Ext.A, B and C. The Reference court relying on the
contemporaneous sale deeds determined the price at
Rs.11,000/- per katha.
7. While determining the compensation, the court is
required to keep in mind the law that has been crystalised by
the Apex Court in the decisions rendered in Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation and Others Vs. Shardaben and
others (1996) 8 SCC 93, Hookiyar Singh and others Vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and another,
(1996) 3 SCC 766, State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Kumari
Devi (Smt) and others, (1996) 8 SCC 577 and Gujarat
Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Narrottambhai
Morarbhai and another, (1996) 11 SCC 159.
8. In the case at hand, there are number of sale deeds
which were exhibited, and the same would show the price per
katha varied from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.11,000/-. As the Land
Acquisition Officer had fixed the price per katha, the learned
reference Judge could not be said to be gone by determining the
price per acre. When the said principle is accepted, the only thing
remains for consideration is the determination of quantum. The
acquired area of the transaction covered in the sale deeds is
-8-
almost adjacent to the land. The said fact is not disputed by
learned counsel for the parties.
9. Regarding being had to the proximity of the area and
the contemporaneous sale deeds and the oral evidence brought
on record and the principle that has been fixed by the Lordships
of the Apex Court and the component of guess work which can
be taken aid of, I am of the considered opinion the valuation
should be determined at Rs.8,000/- per katha and accordingly, the
award passed by the Reference Judge is modified and the
claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.8,000/- per katha. Needless to say they shall be entitled all
statutory benefits including the interest on solatium as per the
decision rendered in Sunder Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC
3516.
10. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The
award shall be modified accordingly. The modified award shall
be satisfied within four months. The parties shall bear their
respective costs throughout.
( Dipak Misra, C.J.)
Sunil/