2026:JHHC:15302

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 4 of 2014

Central Coalfields Limited, through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House,

P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager

(L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o Late R. Ranjeet Singh, R/o Jawahar Nagar

Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi

… … Opposite Party/Appellant

Versus

1. Ram Nandan Prasad S/o Madho Prasad (Substituted v/o dated

17.07.2023)

1(a). Umesh Kumar Gupta

1(b). Dinesh Kumar

1(c). Mukesh Gupta

1(d). Ramesh Kumar

All S/o Late Ram Nandan Prasad

2. Jadu Nandan Prasad S/o Madho Prasad (Substituted v/o dated

17.07.2023)

2(a). Santosh Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Jadu Nandan Prasad Gupta @

Yadu Nandan Prasad Gupta,

All residents of Bara Bazar, Mohalla- Bara Bazar, P.O. + P.S. +

District- Hazaribagh- 825301

… … Applicants/Respondents

3. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-

Hazaribagh

… … Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent

With

F.A. No. 5 of 2014

Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited,

through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-

Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o

Late R. Ranjeet Singh, R/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.-

Gonda, District- Ranchi

… … Opposite Party/Appellant

Versus

1. Soharai Manjhi

2. Lakhan Manjhi

Both sons of Late Dinu Manjhi, residents of Village- Pindra, P.O. &

P.S.- Mandu, District- Hazaribagh

… … Applicants/Respondents

3. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-

Hazaribagh

… … Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent

With

F.A. No. 6 of 2014

Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited,

through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-

Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o

Late R. Ranjeet Singh, r/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.-

Gonda, District- Ranchi

… … Opposite Party/Appellant

2026:JHHC:15302

2

Versus

1. Chandmuni Devi, W/o Late Lodha Manjhi

2. Mahalal Manjhi @ Mahadeo Manjhi, S/o Late Lodha Manjhi

(Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 deleted and substituted vide order dated

12.12.2025)

1. Govind Marandi, S/o Late Mahalal Manjhi, resident of Village-

Pindra, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, District- Hazaribagh

… … Applicant/Respondent

2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-

Hazaribagh

… … Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent

With

F.A. No. 7 of 2014

Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited,

through its C.M.D., Darbhanga House, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-

Kotwali, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) S.N. Singh, S/o

Late R. Ranjeet Singh, r/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.-

Gonda, District- Ranchi

… … Opposite Party/Appellant

Versus

1. Parwati Devi, W/o Jharilal Manjhi, resident of Village- Pindra, P.O.

& P.S.- Mandu, District- Hazaribagh

… … Applicant/Respondent

2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-

Hazaribagh

… … Opposite Party/Proforma Respondent

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate

: Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

: Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate

(In all cases)

For contesting respondents : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Senior Advocate

: Ms. Sakshi Charu, Advocate

: Miss Kavita Kumari, Advocate

(In F.A. No. 4 & 5 of 2014)

: Mr. Sahdeo Mahto, Advocate

(In F.A. No. 6 of 2014)

: Mr. B.R. Rochan, Advocate

(F.A. No. 7 of 2014)

---

C.A.V. On 05.02.2026 Pronounced on 19.05.2026

1. All the four first appeals have been filed under section 20(1) of

the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the common Judgement

dated 30.05.2013 passed by the learned A.J.C.-I-cum- Tribunal under

the Coal Bearing Areas (A & D), Ranchi in Reference Case Nos.

2026:JHHC:15302

3

01/1996, 48/1995, 50/1995, 51/1995 and 49/1995. The connected

appeals are as under: -

First Appeal Name of Claimants Reference Case No.

FA No. 4/2014 Ram Nandan Prasad 01/1996

FA No. 5/2014 Soharai Manjhi & Anr 48/1995

FA No. 6/2014 Hopna Manjhi

50/1995

Chand Muni Devi & Ors 51/1995

FA No. 7/2014 Parwati Devi 49/1995

2. The acquired lands involved in these cases are relating to khata

no. 4 and 6 in Mouza- Pindra, Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag

and compensation for acquired land has been fixed the prevailing

market price at flat rate of Rs. 600/- per decimal; solatium @ 30%;

escalation @ 12% for the period from the date of publication of

notification under Section 4(1) of the of the aforesaid Act to under

Section 9 of the Act; interest @ 9 % for the first year and 15% per year

for rest of the period on the enhanced amount of compensation and

directed the appellant to pay the balance of the compensation amount

within three months from the date of the order and disposed of the

reference cases on contest.

3. The common appellant in all these appeals is the acquirer of land

(CCL) challenging enhancement of the rate of compensation of

acquired land of same village under the common Notification dated

13.01.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Act for prospects of coal

therein.

4. The Notification under Section 7(1) of the Act was published on

28.04.1982 and the Notification under Section 9 of the Act was

published on 01.10.1983. The aforesaid lands having different plot

numbers of Khata No. 4 and 6 of Village- Pindra alongwith trees

standing thereon were acquired in respect to the reference cases.

5. After acquisition of the lands, the claimants received their

respective compensation amounts under protest and thereafter, they

filed petitions under Section 17(2) of the Act for payment of higher

compensation, which were registered as aforesaid Reference Cases.

The claimants claimed higher compensation for land and also the trees.

2026:JHHC:15302

4

6. The learned Tribunal under the Coal Bearing Areas (A & D),

Ranchi framed the following points for determination:

(1) Is the compensation awarded to the claimants is according

to market value of the land prevailing at the time of

notification U/s 4(1) of the said Act?

(2) Are the claimants entitled to claim enhanced compensation

in respect of the land under acquisition-in-question?

(3) Are the claimants entitled to claim solatium, escalation

amount and interest at the prescribed rate on the market

value of the land as claimed?

7. The learned Tribunal took Point Nos. (1) & (2) together for

decision and recorded that the value of the tress has been assessed on

the rate assessed by the forest department. The learned Tribunal

recorded the admitted facts of the case.

8. The learned tribunal discussed the evidence of the witnesses

adduced on behalf of the claimants at Para-10 which reads as under:

“10. In light of above admitted facts, I would like to discuss

evidence adduced by the parties. Applicant Witness No.1 states that

CCL has given very less compensation though it requires

Rs.3,500/- per decimal. Further he states that said land is well

developed land. Similarly, Applicant Witness No.2 states that it is

developed land and it is having value @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal.

Applicant Witness No.3 and 4 have also corroborated same facts.

Applicant Witness No.5 states that this case has been filed for

enhanced compensation, but during evidence he has not disclosed

the rate of compensation. Applicant Witness No.6 states that

appropriate compensation will be @ Rs.6,000/- per decimal. Same

fact has been corroborated by Applicant Witness No.7. In Refence

Case No.1/1996, the applicant himself has been examined as

Witness No.1. He stated that acquired land is well developed land

which is adjacent to collieries and its compensation has been paid

very less, which is required to be enhanced @ Rs.10,000/- per

decimal. He has also given description of the trees standing thereon

at the time of acquisition and income to be derived from it.”

9. The learned tribunal discussed the evidence of the witnesses

adduced on behalf of Union of India at Para-11 which reads as under:

“11. On the other hand, four witnesses have been examined by the

O.P. in these cases. who are common. O.P.W.-1 states that the rate

of compensation was fixed by the specialists who have fixed it after

assessment and inspection of the land and rate of the trees was also

2026:JHHC:15302

5

fixed as per fixed rate of government. Further he states that as per

rate available at district registry office, rate of compensation was

fixed according to the Act and acquired lands falls under the Coal

Minig Area. On identification of this witness, notification U/s. 9(1),

4(1) and 7(1) of the Act have been marked Exhibit- A, A/1 and A/2

respectively. At Para-21, he states that all these fields are under

West Bokaro Coal field Area which is running since 1974. O.P.W.-

2 has corroborated above evidence of O.P.W-1 and he states as

Para-5 that apart from appropriate compensation, service (job)

has also been given to the claimants and their claim is wrong. Same

fact has also been stated by O.P.W.-3 and he has corroborated

evidence of O.P.W.-1. O.P.W.-4 has brought the case record of all

these five Reference cases which have been marked Exhibit-B

series. During cross-examination at Para-10, he states that the

land of Village- Pindra is under West Bokaro Coal field. At Para-

12, he states that acquisition was made for mining of the Coal.”

10. The learned tribunal discussed the exhibits adduced on behalf of

the parties at Para-12, 13 and 14 which reads as under:

“12. As documentary evidence, photo copy of the true copy of the

judgment dated 31.03.95 passed by the Hon’ble Court in respect to

the Appeal No.18-47/1993 (R) in which compensation of the land

of village Laiyo was under consideration has been filed which has

been marked Exhibit-1. In that very case, tribunal has enhanced the

rate of compensation @ Rs. 1200/- per decimal which was reduced

by the Hon’ble Court after considering all evidence and it was fixed

at the rate of Rs.600/- per decimal as flat rate related to all

acquired lands of the Village- Laiyo without any classification and

said rate is inclusive of the rate of the trees standing on those lands.

Exhibit-1/A is the photo copy of certified copy of the judgment

passed by the tribunal on 01.03.94 under the Coal Bearing Areas

Act in respect to 16 reference cases related to the lands of village-

Parej and Daru Kashmar and after considering all the evidence

including sale deeds produced before the tribunal, flat rate of

Rs.72,700/- per acre was granted by enhancement of the

compensation awarded in respect to acquired land. Ext-2 is photo

copy of map of Mandu Anchal which shows that village-Pindra is

in the vicinity of the village-Parej and Daru Kashmar.

13. It is very much clear from Ext-1/A that in respect to the land

of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar, rate was enhanced by the

tribunal and fixed @ Rs.72,700/-per acre. Same rate was also fixed

by the tribunal in judgment and award dated 3.9.92 passed in

Reference Cases No.57 to 88 of 1989 in respect to the land related

to Village- Laiyo and it has been reduced by the Hon’ble High

Court @ Rs.600/- per decimal vide Ext-1. However, there is no any

evidence to show that Ext-1/A has been challenged before the

Hon’ble High Court and it has got its finality.

2026:JHHC:15302

6

14. Though in this case, no any sale deed has been brought into

evidence by any of the party to prove the prevailing market rate in

the locality, but on the basis of Ext-1, I am of the opinion that rate

fixed by the O.P. in respect to Village- Laiyo was not adequate and

in accordance with prevailing market rate. In that very case related

to Exhibit-1, several sale deeds were produced by the claimants

and all were considered by the Hon’ble Court. On the basis of

evidence available on that very record, flat rate was fixed @

Rs.600/- per decimal. Exhibit-A-series are the notifications U/s. 4,

7 and 9 of the Act. Exhibit-B-series are the case records of

claimants; Exhibit-C is record related to fixation of compensation

and Exhibit-D is the record related to fixation of rate of

compensation of Village- Pindra.

11. The learned Tribunal decided the Point Nos. (1) & (2) in favour

of the claimants, except in respect of their claim for higher

compensation for the trees, and against the Union of India, vide

findings at Para- 16 as under:

16. In light of above discussion, both these points are decided in

favour of the claimants, except in respect of their claim for higher

compensation of the trees and against O.P. Accordingly, rate of

compensation is being fixed at the rate of Rs.600/- per decimal in

respect to acquired land.”

12. The learned Tribunal considered Point No.3 with regard to the

issue of payment of solatium, interest and escalation on compensation

at Para-17, which reads as under:

“17. Point No.3:- In respect to this point, I would like to mention

here that it is admitted fact that solatium @ 30%, escalation

@12% per annum for the period from the date of publication of

notification U/s 4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @

9% per year for first year and 15% for the remaining period on

assessed amount of compensation by the OP has already been

granted, as it is apparent from the documentary evidence produced

by the OP. Therefore, it is admitted fact of the O.P. which cannot

be taken away in any view of the matter. Hence, I am of the view

that claimants are also entitled to solatium @ 30%, escalation @

12% per annum for the period from the date of publication of

notification U/s 4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @

9% per year for first year and 15% for the remaining period on the

enhanced compensation amount also. Accordingly, this point is

also being decided in favour of the claimants and against the O.P.”

13. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal determined and fixed the

prevailing market price of the acquired lands @ Rs.600/- per decimal

and further observed that solatium @ 30%, escalation @12% per

2026:JHHC:15302

7

annum for the period from the date of publication of notification U/s

4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @ 9% per year for first

year and 15% for the remaining period on assessed amount of

compensation by the OP has already been granted, and also held that

claimants are also entitled to solatium @ 30%, escalation @ 12% per

annum for the period from the date of publication of notification U/s

4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act and interest @ 9% per year for first

year and 15% for the remaining period on the enhanced compensation

amount also.

14. The enhancement of compensation of land was primarily on the

basis of Exhibit-1, the judgment dated 31.03.95 passed by this Court in

respect to the Appeal No.18-47/1993 (R) in which compensation of the

land of village Laiyo acquired through the same notification where the

enhancement of compensation at flat rate of Rs. 1200/- per decimal was

reduced to flat rate of Rs.600/- per decimal without any classification.

The learned tribunal referred to Exhibit-1/A also which is the judgment

passed by the tribunal on 01.03.94 related to the lands of village-Parej

and Daru Kashmar which were also acquired by the same notification

where the tribunal enhanced the compensation at flat rate of Rs.72,700/-

but refused to rely upon the same as it was not clear as to whether the

same was subject matter of challenge in the High Court inspite of

recording that as per Exhibit-2 (map of Mandu Anchal) village-Pindra

is in the vicinity of the village-Parej and Daru Kashmar.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

15. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

claimants had challenged the assessment of compensation made by the

competent authority before the learned court and therefore the burden

of proof that the compensation was not as per law was upon them. The

claimants did not produce any material with respect to the acquisition

of land/sale of land in the same village and mere statement that the

compensation was inadequate was not sufficient. The learned court was

not justified in interfering with the quantum of compensation fixed by

the competent authority. The learned counsel has relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 14

SCC 50 (Ramlal Deochand Sah vs. State of Maharashtra) Paragraph-

2026:JHHC:15302

8

9. The learned counsel has also relied upon Section 101, 102 and 103

of the Evidence Act to submit that the burden is upon the person who

approaches the court and the burden having not been discharged by the

claimants, the interference in the quantum of compensation was wholly

uncalled for.

16. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed in

Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2022 (Ramrao Shankar Tapase versus

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others)

reported in (2022) 7 SCC 563 Para 13 to submit that even for the same

locality different market value for different land is required to be

determined. The nature of land is also required to be seen while fixing

the rate of compensation. The learned counsel has submitted that

several villages have been acquired by the same Notification and the

learned court has referred to Exhibit-1 which is in relation to another

Village- Laiyo and the land involved in Exhibit-1 was not acquired by

the same notification. The reliance on Exhibit-1 is not as per law. The

learned counsel has also referred to the map to submit that the Village-

Laiyo is much away from the acquired land in the present case which is

village ‘Pindra’.

17. However, during the course of arguments and from the

notification involved in this case, it is apparent that the land of village

Pindra, Tapin, Parej, Daru Kashmar and land of some other villages

were acquired by the same notification. It also appeared that the learned

trial court has also recorded that Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar were

adjoining to village ‘Pindra’.

18. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land

of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar is not adjoining to Pindra.

However, during the course of hearing, it transpired that Village- Parej

is adjoining to village Tapin and Village- Mansai and Village- Daru

Kashmar fall adjoining to Village- Tapin on the other side.

19. The learned counsel also submitted that so far as Exhibit-1/A is

concerned, the same was in relation to acquisition of land of village

Parej and Daru Kashmar and the compensation as fixed for these

villages has been exhibited before the learned court as Exhibit-1/A. He

also submitted that the compensation so fixed was the subject matter of

2026:JHHC:15302

9

consideration by this Court in M.A. No.50 of 1995 and analogous cases

wherein the compensation has been reduced to Rs.600/- per decimal

apart from other amounts. The learned counsel submitted that the

judgement in M.A. was challenged in LPA. No. 02 of 2005 and other

analogous case and the LPA has also been dismissed. The learned

counsel submitted that while disposing of aforesaid M.A. No. 50 of

1995, the development cost to the extent of 20% was also deducted. The

learned counsel submitted that be it village Parej or Daru Kashmar or

village Laiyo, ultimately the compensation was fixed @ Rs.600/- per

decimal.

20. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has

relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 (Lal Chand versus Union of India and

Another) Para-22, to submit that the development cost can extend

between 20% to 75%. On the point of development cost, the learned

counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474

[Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others versus

State of Haryana and Another] Paragraph 8, 9 and 10 and also

judgement passed by this court in F.A. No. 71 of 2015 Paragraph 38.

It is submitted that in Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2022 reported in (2022)

7 SCC 563, the principles of deduction on account of development cost

have been mentioned in Paragraph-11. The learned counsel has also

relied upon the judgment reported in 1998 SCC Online Patna 186

(Union of India versus Kashinath Mahto) Paragraph-14 to submit that

in the said judgment, the development cost was enhanced to the extent

of 40% and the same judgment is related to the same Act under which

the land acquisition in the present case has been made.

21. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, it is submitted that

nothing much is to be placed except to the extent that P.W.-1 at Para-5

and P.W.-2 at Paragraph-3 have stated that the physical possession of

the property involved in these cases was taken only in the year 1996.

The learned counsel submitted that even if the interest is found payable,

then also, interest would be payable post 1996 and not from the date of

acquisition. It has been submitted that the claimant having been in

2026:JHHC:15302

10

possession till 1996 have enjoyed the property and therefore, they are

not entitled to any interest.

22. The learned counsel submits that the payment of interest is

governed by the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and has referred to

Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act to submit that interest is

payable only when the possession is taken and compensation is not paid

or deposited.

23. The learned counsel has also submitted that the aforesaid

provision of payment of interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894

became applicable to the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition

and Development) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as Coal Bearing

Act] only where virtue of the notification issued by the central

government to maintain parity in the matter of payment of

compensation, interest and solatium under both the Acts.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

24. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the judgment

passed by this court in F.A. No. 140 of 2016 [Union of India through

the Chief Revenue Officer, CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi vs.

Sitaram Sahu and Another] Paragraph- 48 and 49 to submit that in case

where no sale deed with respect to the same village is available, the sale

deed of adjoining village certainly be taken into consideration and some

amount of guess work is permissible in law. The learned counsel

submits that the CCL had not produced any sale deed and even the rate

chart does not refer to any sale deed. He has also submitted that rate

chart Exhibit-D was exhibited at the stage of the argument before the

learned court. The learned counsel has submitted that mere rate chart

by itself cannot be said to be evidence for the purposes of fixing of

compensation. Vide Exhibit-1 and also Exhibit-1/A, same rate of

compensation was fixed i.e. @ Rs. 600/- per decimal, and as per the

impugned judgment also, the rate of compensation fixed is @ Rs.600/-

per decimal. The impugned judgement does not call for any interference

particularly when the land involved in Exhibit-1/A and the land

involved in the present case were acquired by the same notification and

at the same time. The learned counsel has also submitted that the

2026:JHHC:15302

11

payment of interest and solatium also does not call for any interference

and the same is payable from the date of Notification issued under

Section 9 of the aforesaid Coal Bearing Act. The learned counsel

submits that so far as the circular issued by the central government is

concerned, the same also does not refer to the date of physical

possession of the property. He has also submitted that as per Section 9,

the possession of the property vests with the coal company upon

issuance of notification under Section 9 and the coal company acquire

the status of a lessee under the aforesaid Coal Bearing Act.

Rejoinder argument on behalf of the appellants

25. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted

that vide order dated 19.06.2018 the learned trial court by a detailed

order rejected the claim for additional compensation under Section 23-

(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

26. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has not

granted additional compensation but, in the decree, the additional

compensation has also been added. He submits that entitlement of

additional compensation is also required to be decided.

27. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment reported in

2024 SCC Online 1691 [New Okhla Industrial Development

Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs. And Others]

Paragraph- 14 and 43 to submit that the circle rate can also be

considered while awarding compensation by making marginal addition.

The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this

court in F.A. No. 492 of 2018 Paragraph- 113 to submit that

compensation can also be determined on the circle rate and that would

be a basis for guess work for fixing compensation.

28. Points for determination in this case are as follows: -

Whether, the learned tribunal erred in law in awarding

additional compensation although no additional compensation

has been awarded by the impugned judgement and the claim

for additional compensation has been earlier rejected vide

order dated 19.06.2018 by the learned trial court under Section

23-(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act?

And

2026:JHHC:15302

12

Whether, the learned tribunal erred in awarding interest and it

ought to have been awarded from the year 1996 as the

claimants have also allegedly deposed that they were

dispossessed in 1996?

Whether the impugned judgement enhancing the

compensation for acquired land at flat rate of Rs.600/- per

decimal call for any interference?

And

Whether the appellants are entitled to deduction on account of

development cost with respect to the acquired lands of village

Pindra?

Findings of this Court

29. Case of the Claimants

A. The common facts are that same rate of compensation was fixed

for the acquired land belonging to the same village and the

claimants claimed that the prevailing market rate was

Rs.10,000/- per decimal at the time of acquisition of the land and

therefore, the claimants received the payments under protest.

B. Further case of the claimants was that the acquired lands were

surrounded with many adjacent collieries, like Parej, Laiyo,

Baraghatu, Kedela, Toyar, Ara, Saru, Pers, Topa, Tapin,

Jharkhand and Rapodh which were nationalized in the year 1973

and since then, industrial activities are going on.

C. The acquired lands are situated beside the Patna-Ranchi National

Highway and are connected with pitch road and Shopping

Centers, Cinema Hall, Government Hospital, Haat, Market,

loading and unloading centers, office of the railway, post office

and other official buildings are also situated in the vicinity of the

acquired lands and therefore, potentiality and value of the

acquired lands is much more developed, but the same has not

been considered during assessment of the compensation amount.

D. There are many trees like Mango, Mahua, Guava, Kathal, Saal,

etc. which are having market rate @ Rs.500/- per sq. ft., but the

same has also not been considered by the acquiring authority.

2026:JHHC:15302

13

E. The rate of the said types of land has already been enhanced by

the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh in other cases related

to adjacent villages.

30. Case of the Union of India

I. The Union of India filed objection petitions / rejoinders in the

reference cases denying the claim of the claimants and with

common assertions that claim petitions are not maintainable and

no detail has been given in the petitions.

II. It was not mentioned in the claim petitions as to how and on what

basis the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation and in

absence of the relevant details it was difficult to respond to the

claim petitions.

III. The value of the acquired lands has been fixed on the basis of the

prevailing market rate of the lands at the time of acquisition,

which was assessed by experts and competent officers after

obtaining rate from the registry office.

31. The applicants/claimants examined 08 witnesses in support of

their case. Applicant Witness No.1 (Jhari Manjhi) is the common

witness in Reference Case Nos. 48/1995, 49/1995, 50/1995 and

51/1995. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that C.C.L. has given

very less compensation which should have been Rs.3,500/- per decimal.

The C.C.L. has opened mines over the lands. He further stated that

electricity, water, road and market are situated near their lands. During

cross-examination, he admitted that the lands were measured in his

presence. He further admitted at Para-5 that the notification for

acquisition of the lands was issued in the year 1980 and their possession

was taken in the year 1996. The lands were not tanr only. The value of

the lands was Rs.3,500/- per decimal in the year 1980 and he has seen

the sale deeds of the land but had not brought the same. He further

stated at Para-6 that Haat was being organized since about 20 years

over the government land after establishment of the colliery and there

was Haat at Pindra as back as in the year 1980 also and all the facilities

were available there.

2026:JHHC:15302

14

32. Applicant Witness No.2 (Md. Rafique) is the common witness in

Reference Case Nos. 48/1995, 49/1995, 50/1995 and 51/1995. In his

examination-in-chief, he deposed that he knows the acquired lands of

Hopna Manjhi and others which is situated adjoining to Parej Bangla

where there was mine of Ramgarh Raj since last 40 to 50 years.

Village- Pindra is situated at the adjacent like a colony in town. The

office of C.C.L. is situated there. The value of the land is Rs.3,500/- per

decimal. Haat is organized daily here. During cross-examination, he

admitted at Para-3 that the notification for acquisition of the land was

issued in the year 1980-81 and its possession was taken over in the year

1996. Parvati Devi has been paid compensation of Rs.81,000/- for her

land measuring 1 acre and 85 decimals and Chandmuni Devi has also

been paid same amount of compensation. He further admitted at Para-

4 that colliery is situated adjacent to Village- Pindra having 70-75

houses and all the lands were Dhani-Bari. He has not sold any land

himself. All the land were open for sale and no land of scheduled tribe

can be sold.

33. Applicant Witness No.3 (Parwati Devi) in her examination-in-

chief deposed that C.C.L. has acquired 01 acre 85 decimals of her land

alongwith the lands of Chandmuni. Baluhutu, Tapin and Parej Mouza

are situated adjacent to Mouza- Pindra. The colliery is running from

before. She further deposed that very less compensation has been given

for her land. Mahuwa and Sakhuwa trees were also standing over her

land. She is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.3,500/-. She used to get

the value of mahuwa @ Rs.4,000/- per tree per year. During cross-

examination, she admitted at Para-3 that she has received Rs.81,000/-

only. She used to grow paddy, potato, brinjal over her land and the road

was situated at a distance of 6-7 hands from her land and well, pond

and bari were situated before approaching the road. She stated at Para-

5 that the land situated near her land has been sold @ Rs.3,500/- and

Lakhan and Chhotka Manjhi had executed sale deed at Hazaribag. She

stated at Para-6 that 1,500 Mahuwa trees were standing over her land

apart from paddy fields, but she has not received any compensation for

the trees.

2026:JHHC:15302

15

34. Applicant Witness No.4 (Shanti Devi) in her examination-in-

chief deposed that their land has been acquired by the C.C.L., but very

less compensation has been paid to them. She further deposed that

Mouza Parej, Tapin and Baluhutu are situated near Pindra and

mines are running for a long period in those mouza. The value of

those lands would be at least Rs.3,500/- per decimal. She further stated

that kamliya, market, office, etc. are situated over her land and road is

also situated near the land. 500 old Mahuwa and Sakhuwa trees were

standing over her land. Her father had died. Chandmuni is her aunt and

her land of similar kind has also been acquired. During cross-

examination, she stated that C.C.L. has acquired 08 acres of her land

and she has received compensation for her land, but she has filed the

application for enhancing the compensation and she is entitled to get

compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per acre.

35. Applicant Witness No.5 (Meena Devi) in her examination-in-

chief deposed that her father and uncle had filed application for

enhancement of the compensation for the lands and they have died. She

further deposed that Mahuwa and Sakhuwa trees were standing over

their lands and their value was high. During cross-examination, she

stated that C.C.L. had acquired their lands. They are three sisters and

no brother. The names of her sisters are Shoni and Shanti. She is entitled

to get the enhanced compensation. She does not know as to how much

compensation was paid.

36. Applicant Witness No.6 (Chandmuni) in her examination-in-

chief deposed that C.C.L. has acquired her land for Pindra Colliery, but

she has received very less compensation with objection. Rs.3,000/- per

decimal would be the appropriate compensation. During cross-

examination, she stated at Para-2 that the compensation was prepared

in her name and she has received Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,600/-. She

further admitted at Para-3 that all the lands were measured in presence

of the villagers.

37. Applicant Witness No.7 (Pano Devi) in her examination-in-chief

deposed that C.C.L. has acquired her land, but she has received very

less compensation after death of her husband, which has been received

by her with objection. The compensation for the land should have been

2026:JHHC:15302

16

at least Rs.3,000/- per decimal. During cross-examination, she

admitted at Para-2 that no job has been given in lieu of the land. No

agriculture was done over the land, but she used to collect Mahuwa.

38. Applicant Witness No.1 (Ram Nandan Prasad) is sole witness in

Reference Case No. 01/1996. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed

that his land has been acquired by C.C.L., but he has received very less

compensation. The value of his land should have been Rs.10,000/- per

decimal. His land is flat and fertile. Pindra is situated adjacent to

Parej, Ghato, Phugu, Laiyo, etc. and all the places are connected to

road and have markets, colony, etc. in all the places. There were fruit

trees and Sakhuwa trees over his land and he used to sell Mahuwa of

Rs.300/- per year @ Rs.2-3/- per Kg. at that time. During cross-

examination, he admitted at Para-4 that he had received compensation

amount of Rs.1,93,000/- in the year 1996. He further admitted at Para-

6 that Patna-Ranchi Road is situated at a distance of 5 miles from Pindra

and he has not filed any sale deed or document in support of the value

of his land. There was no industry or trade in his village at the time of

acquisition of his land. Maize, corn and paddy were grown over his

land.

39. The applicants / claimants exhibited the following documents as

documentary evidence:

Exhibit-1 Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 31.03.1995

passed in Appeal arising out of Original Order

Nos.18-47/1993(R) relating to payment of

compensation of the lands of Village- Laiyo, P.S.-

Mandu, District- Hazaribag

Exhibit-1/A Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 01.03.1994

passed by the Tribunal under Coal Bearing Areas

(A&D) Act in 16 reference cases relating to the lands

of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar

Exhibit-2 Photocopy of map of Mandu Anchal showing Village-

Pindra in the vicinity of Village- Parej and Daru

Kashmar

40. The Union of India examined 4 witnesses who are common in all

the references cases. O.P.W.-1 (Animesh Chandra Acharya) filed his

2026:JHHC:15302

17

examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is working on the post

of Assistant Revenue Officer in the office of the Chief General

Manager, C.C.L. He further stated that approximately 535.70 acres of

land in Mouza- Pindra, Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag has been

acquired by C.C.L. for coal mining under Section 9(1) of the C.B.A.

Act vide Notification No.3687 dated 13.09.1983 by the Government of

India, which was published in the Gazette of Government of India on

01.10.1983. The Notification under Section 4(1) for the lands was

published by the Ministry of Power, New Delhi vide S.O. No.699 dated

13.01.1981 and the Notification under Section 7(1) for the acquired

lands was published by the Ministry of Power, New Delhi vide S.O.

No.1785 dated 28.04.1982. He further stated that the current status of

the land was assessed by the C.C.L. through appointed experts after

spot inspection and the trees and plants standing over the land was

assessed and the compensation was determined by the Government on

the basis of the prescribed rate and the compensation and the interest

on the basis of the payable interest was paid to the claimants. He further

stated that the rate for payment of compensation for the raiyati lands

was determined under the provisions of C.B.A. Act on the basis of the

sale and purchase documents available in the District Registry Office,

Hazaribag. Solatium @ 30%, additional compensation @ 12% and

interest @ 9 % for the first year under Section 9 of the Act and 15% per

year for rest of the period was paid apart from the compensation. The

acquired land was totally barren and infertile at the time of acquisition.

The acquired land falls under the area of coal mining. He further stated

that the claim of payment of less compensation of the claimants is

incorrect. He exhibited the Notification No.3687 dated 13.09.1983

under Section 9(1) of the Act as Exhibit-A, Notification No.699 dated

13.01.1981 under Section 4(1) of the Act as Exhibit-A/1 and

Notification No.1785 dated 28.04.1982 under Section 7(1) of the Act

as Exhibit-A/2. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-15 that

the land owners of Daru Kashmar and Parej have filed cases for

payment of appropriate compensation before the same tribunal. He

further admitted at Para-16 that he does not know as to whether the

Tribunal had determined the compensation @ Rs.72,700/- per acre on

2026:JHHC:15302

18

01.03.1995. He does not remember as to whether he had deposed in

Case Nos. 1 to 10 of 1994 and Case Nos. 115 to 120 of 1993. He also

admitted that he was not a part of the assessment team for the lands of

Pindra. He stated that it is not correct to say that Pindra, Daru Kashmar

and Parej are adjoining to each other.

41. O.P.W.-2 (Lal Keshwar Mahto) filed his examination-in-chief on

affidavit stating that he is working on the post of Assistant Revenue

Inspector in the office of the Chief General Manager, C.C.L. He further

stated that approximately 535.70 acres of land in Mouza- Pindra,

Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag has been acquired by C.C.L. for

coal mining. He further stated that the then status of the acquired land

was assessed by the C.C.L. through appointed experts after spot

inspection. He also stated that the rate for payment of compensation for

the raiyati lands was determined under the provisions of C.B.A. Act on

the basis of the sale and purchase documents available in the District

Registry Office, Hazaribag and the compensation alongwith interest,

additional interest, solation, etc. was paid as per law. The claimants

have been paid appropriate compensation alongwith job and their claim

of payment of less compensation is incorrect. As per LCR, order dated

16.09.2011, last chance was given to produce O.P.W.-2 (Lal Keshwar

Mahto) for cross-examination, but thereafter he never appeared for

cross-examination. On 28.03.2012, evidence on behalf of Opposite

Parties/ CCL/ Union of India was closed and the case was put up on

05.05.2012 for argument.

42. O.P.W.-3 (Bijay Kant Mishra) filed his examination-in-chief on

affidavit stating that he is working on the post of Senior Manager in the

office of the Chief General Manager, C.C.L. He further stated that

approximately 535.70 acres of land in Mouza- Pindra, Thana- Mandu,

District- Hazaribag has been acquired by C.C.L. for coal mining. He

further stated that the then status of the acquired land was assessed by

the C.C.L. through appointed experts after spot inspection. He also

stated that the rate for payment of compensation for the raiyati lands

was determined under the provisions of C.B.A. Act on the basis of the

sale and purchase documents available in the District Registry Office,

Hazaribag and the compensation alongwith interest, additional interest,

2026:JHHC:15302

19

solation, etc. was paid as per law. The claimants have been paid

appropriate compensation alongwith job and their claim of payment of

less compensation is incorrect. O.P.No.3 During cross-examination,

he admitted at Para-6 that the lands of Ichakdiha, Parej, Laiyo, Daru

Kashmar have also been acquired alongwith Pindra. He admitted at

Para-7 that 535.70 acres of lands of Pindra have been acquired for coal

and Kuju Colliery is situated at a distance of 15/20 Kilometres from

there and coal is transported everywhere from there. He admitted at

Para-8 & 9 that he has no role in determining the value of the lands of

Pindra and he does not know who has determined the compensation.

He also admitted that Para-10 & 11 that he has not seen any sale deed

of the village of the year 1982/83 and he cannot say which sale deed

was issued from the registry office. He admitted at Para-12 that apart

from the acquired lands, the land of Malana, Kedela, Ichakdiha,

Laiyo, Katyasi comes under the Bokaro West Colliery. Earlier it was

a private colliery and it was nationalised by the Government in the

year 1973. He said at Para-13 that he does not know that the Hon’ble

High Court has determined the compensation for the villages Ichakdiha

and Dakapaha as Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. He admitted at Para-14 that

the West Bokaro Coal Washery of Tata is situated near the acquired

lands. He also admitted at Para-15 that pucca road from Charhi to

Laiyo, water, electricity, etc. are available there. He admitted at Para-

16 that he is Senior Manager (Mining). He denied the suggestion at

Para-17 that the value of the lands has been determined very less.

43. O.P.W.-4 (Sunil Prasad Gupta) who was working in the office of

the General Manager, C.C.L filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit

stating that the suit lands have been acquired by the C.C.L. by

publishing notifications under Sections 4(1), 7(1) and 9(1) of the

C.B.A. Act. He exhibited the case records of the acquired lands as

under:

Reference Case No. Case Record No. Exhibit No.

48/1995 229 Exhibit-B

49/1995 231 Exhibit-B/1

50/1995 231 Exhibit-B/2

51/1995 231 Exhibit-B/3

2026:JHHC:15302

20

01/1996 230 Exhibit-B/4

He further stated that Khata, Plot, area, type of land, rate of

compensation, interest, additional interest, solatium and other benefits

are mentioned in the Compensation Report of the acquired lands. The

compensation rate has been determined as per the type of the land

which is mentioned in the proposal rate and rate approval document.

The compensation has been paid after determining the solatium of the

trees. All the provisions and rules have been complied with as per the

directions of Ministry of Coal, Government of India while determining

the compensation of the claimants. He exhibited the signatures of

competent officers of C.C.L. namely, Sri P.K. Sengupta, A.R.O, Sri

A.C. Acharya, A.R.O., Sri P.G.P. Nayar, Deputy C.R.O. as Exhibit-C.

He further stated that after issuance of the notification under Section 4

of the Act, the revenue karmachari and competent officers of C.C.L.

had made spot inspection and enquiry and had made classification of

the lands and thereafter, the compensation of the lands was determined

on the basis of the contemporary sale deeds and other documents

keeping the rules in mind, which is correct and sufficient. He stated that

on the days of notifications under Sections 4, 7 and 9, the acquired lands

were totally underdeveloped and unproductive. He further stated that

the compensation of the acquired lands was determined on the basis of

their types, use and the value of the land at the time of the notification.

The compensation, interest, additional interest, solatium, etc. have been

paid after compliance of all the benefits, which is sufficient and correct.

During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-8 that at the time of

deposing he was working on the post of Head Surveyor. At the time of

acquisition of the lands of Village-Pindra lands of Daru Kashmar,

Parej were also acquired , which are adjacent villages. He replied at

Para-9 that he does not know as to whether the land owners of Parej

and Daru Kashmar have filed compensation cases and as to whether the

learned court has determined the compensation of the lands of Mouza

Parej and Daru Kashmar as Rs.72,700/- per acre. He further stated at

Para-10 that he has seen the land of Pindra. He also stated at Para-11

that the Government has taken over the private collieries of Ara,

Hesagarh, Jharkhand, Kedla, Kuju Laiyo, Pindra, Minba, Sabudera,

2026:JHHC:15302

21

Deyra, Soyra and Topa, which are adjacent to Tata Colliery. He further

admitted at Para-12 that the lands were acquired for excavation and

selling of coal and the lands of Pindra were acquired for running mines.

Several tons of coal are transported outside from Kuju and Kuju is

situated adjacent to Pindra.

44. Accordingly, the Union of India exhibited the following

documents as documentary evidence:

Exhibit-A Notification No.3687 dated 13.09.1983 under

Section 9(1) of the Act

Exhibit-A/1 Notification No.699 dated 13.01.1981 under

Section 4(1) of the Act

Exhibit-A/2 Notification No.1785 dated 28.04.1982 under

Section 7(1) of the Act

Exhibit-B Case Record of Reference Case No. 48/1995

Exhibit-B/1 Case Record of Reference Case No. 49/1995

Exhibit-B/2 Case Record of Reference Case No. 50/1995

Exhibit-B/3 Case Record of Reference Case No. 51/1995

Exhibit-B/4 Case Record of Reference Case No. 01/1996

Exhibit-C Signatures of competent officers of C.C.L. in

Compensation Report of the acquired lands

Exhibit-D Record related to fixation of rate of compensation

of Village- Pindra

45. This court finds that the following facts are not in dispute which

have also been recorded by the learned tribunal: -

a. The learned Tribunal took Point Nos. (1) & (2) together

for decision Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was

published in the official Gazette vide S.O. No.699 dated

13.01.1981 through which the lands related to Village-

Pindra alongwith lands of other villages were acquired

(Exhibit-A/1).

b. The Notification under Section 7(1) of the Act was

published vide S.O. No.1785 dated 28.04.1982 (Exhibit-

A/2).

c. Notification under Section 9(1) of the Act vide S.O. No.

3687 dated 13.09.1983 was published in the official

Gazette of India on 01.10.1983 (Exhibit-A) whereby the

2026:JHHC:15302

22

lands related to Village- Pindra in respect to the reference

cases alongwith other lands were acquired.

d. The lands related to Plot Nos. 3 to 79, 80(Part), 81(Part),

82(Part), 83(Part), 84(Part), 85 (Part), 86(Part), 87(Part)

and 104(Part), total area 535.70 acres of Village- Pindra

were acquired alongwith trees standing thereon.

e. The rate of lands was fixed according to their classification

(Exhibit-D) which are as follow:-

Paddy-I @ Rs.21,340/- per acre

Paddy-II @ Rs.13,340/- per acre

Paddy-III @ Rs.10,670/- per acre

Tanr-I @ Rs.21,340/- per acre

Tanr-II @ Rs.5,340/- per acre

Tanr-III @ Rs.1,340/- per acre

Others @Rs.670/- per acre

f. In addition to the rates mentioned above, solatium @ 30%

on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @ 15%

for the subsequent years has also been paid to the

claimants on the rates as indicated above and additional

compensation as escalation @ 12% per annum for the

period from the date of publication of notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the Act has

been awarded on the rate of compensation (Exhibit-C).

g. Right, title and interest of the claimants is not in dispute.

h. All the claimants have received payment of compensation

with protest.

46. After having received the compensation with solatium, interest

and escalation as mentioned above, as offered under protest, the

claimants filed petition seeking enhancement of compensation and

impugned judgement and award has been passed. The operative portion

of the impugned is quoted as under:-

ORDER

“These Reference cases are hereby disposed of on contest.

Prevailing market price of the land under acquisition in

question is determined and fixed at the flat rate of Rs.600/- per

decimal. Claimants are also entitled to solatium @ 30%,

escalation @ 12% for the period from the date of publication

of notification U/s 4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act, interest

@ 9% for the first year and 15% per year for rest of the period

only on the enhanced amount of compensation. O.P. is

2026:JHHC:15302

23

directed to pay the balance of the compensation amount within

three months from the date of this order. Let award be

prepared accordingly.”

Whether, the learned tribunal erred in law in awarding additional

compensation although no additional compensation has been

awarded by the impugned judgement and the claim for additional

compensation has been earlier rejected vide order dated 19.06.2018

by the learned trial court under Section 23-(1-A) and Section 23(2) of

the Land Acquisition Act?

And

Whether, the learned tribunal erred in awarding interest and it ought

to have been awarded from the year 1996 as the claimants have also

allegedly deposed that they were dispossessed in 1996?

47. This court finds that the learned tribunal has determined the

compensation of land at flat rate of Rs. 600/- per decimal and so far as

solatium, escalation, interest are concerned, the same has been awarded

only on differential court consequent upon enhancement of the rate of

compensation. The award drawn pursuant to the impugned award

reveals that instead of terming the escalation for the period from

notification u/s 4 to notification u/s 9 for the period from 13.01.1981 to

13.09.1983 the award has used a wrong terminology terming it has

additional compensation although admittedly the impugned judgement

does not allow additional compensation. Further, this Court also finds

that there is no separate calculation for escalation on differential amount

as directed by the impugned judgement. In the aforesaid view of the

matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that

additional compensation has been paid although there is no direction to

pay additional compensation. The terminology used while preparation

of the award, additional compensation on differential amount instead of

escalation on differential amount has no bearing in the matter. Wrong

use of terminology in the award having no impact on the awarded

amount has no bearing in the matter. The term additional compensation

on differential amount in the award it to be taken as escalation amount

on differential amount. The fact that the claimants are entitled to

escalation on differential amount is not in dispute.

2026:JHHC:15302

24

48. Further, in the judgement passed by this court reported in 2005

SCC OnLine Jhar 44: (2005) 1 JLJR 439 (Union of India v. Harla

Devi), paragraph 16 it has been held by referring to the letter No.

43026-88-LSW, dated 12.5.89 of the Government of India, Deptt. of

Coal, -Ministry of Energy, addressed to the Chairman, Coal India Ltd.

that it contains a decision in respect of payment of solatium, interest

and additional compensation. It has been held in the said judgement that

so far payment of solatium and interest at the enhanced rates is

concerned, the same is without any ‘ifs’ or ‘but’ and are made

admissible in respect of all acquisition made under the C.B.A. Act. But

so far payment of additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per

annum is concerned, the same would be admissible in cases of

acquisitions made under the C.B.A. Act, only where the notification

under Section 9(1) of the said Act, has been issued on or after 30.4.82.

As regards payment of the solatium and interest it has been observed as

follows:

(a) Solatium, in addition to market value of the land at

the rate of 30 per cent of the market value for all

acquisitions made under the C.B.A. Act.

(b) An interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for

the first year and 15 per cent per annum for the

subsequent years on the amount of compensation,

including solatium, so calculated for payment of the

land owner.

49. In the present cases notification under section 9 (1) has been

issued after 30.04.1982 and hence the additional compensation by way

of escalation is payable @ 12% per annum which has been included in

the impugned judgement and award. The impugned judgement uses the

term escalation and the award uses the term additional compensation

but there is no difference in the calculation @ 12% per annum. Further,

perusal of order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned court during

the pendency of these appeals reveals that it has been observed that the

matters are pending before this court and the point may be raised before

this court.

50. Upon going through the aforesaid judgement reported in 2005

SCC OnLine Jhar 44: (2005) 1 JLJR 439 (Union of India v. Harla

2026:JHHC:15302

25

Devi), paragraph 16, there is no doubt that the claimants are entitled to

solatium, interest and also additional compensation as awarded by the

learned court but the term escalation has been used in the impugned

judgement and work additional compensation has been used in the

award making no difference in calculation.

51. The aforesaid point regarding additional compensation/

escalation is accordingly decided against the appellant and in favour

of the claimants.

52. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that even the appellants,

while paying compensation to the claimants prior to reference, which

the claimants received under protest, additionally paid solatium @ 30%

on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @ 15% for the

subsequent years to the claimants and additional compensation as

escalation @ 12% per annum for the period from the date of publication

of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the

Act has been paid on the rate of compensation assessed for the land at

their end. The learned tribunal by the impugned judgement has awarded

solatium @ 30% on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @

15% for the subsequent years to the claimants and escalation @ 12%

per annum for the period from the date of publication of notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the Act only on the

differential amount arising out of the enhanced rate of Compensation

Rs.600/- per decimal. In their entire written statement filed before the

learned tribunal, it was not their case that they have wrongly paid

solatium @ 30% on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @

15% for the subsequent years to the claimants and additional

compensation as escalation @ 12% per annum for the period from the

date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to under

Section 9 of the Act and thus, it was not their case that even the interest

already calculated and paid prior to reference suffered from any

illegality with reference to the date of dispossession of the claimants.

The learned tribunal has simply enhanced the rate of compensation for

the land and did not interfere with any other component except that

solatium, escalation and interest have to be paid also on differential

amount for compensation of land. Once the payment of solatium,

2026:JHHC:15302

26

escalation and interest has been accepted and paid prior to reference, it

is not open to the appellant to contend, without any foundational

pleadings, that the claimants having been dispossessed in the year 1996

the interest etc has to be paid from 1996 only.

53. This is over and above the letter no. 43026-88-LSW, dated

12.05.89 of the Government of India, Deptt. of Coal, Ministry of

Energy, addressed to the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. that a decision has

been taken in respect of payment of solatium, interest and additional

compensation and it has been held in the aforesaid judgement that so

far payment of solatium and interest at the enhanced rates is concerned,

the same is without any ‘ifs’ or ‘but’ and are made admissible in respect

of all acquisition made under the C.B.A. Act. But, so far payment of

additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is

concerned, the same would be admissible in cases of acquisitions made

under the C.B.A. Act, only where the notification under Section 9(1) of

the said Act, has been issued on or after 30.4.82.

54. The award of interest, solatium and escalation/additional

compensation is in accordance with the aforesaid judgement read with

the circular issued by the central government in the year 1989 as

discussed and held in the aforesaid judgement reported in 2005 SCC

OnLine Jhar 44: (2005) 1 JLJR 439 (Union of India v. Harla Devi).

55. Moreover, the parties also did not join issues with respect to the

date of dispossession of the claimants. The parties contested the case on

the rate of compensation for acquired land and trees, the compensation

for land was enhanced on the basis of materials placed on record and

there was no enhancement with respect to compensation for the trees

and as a natural corollary to enhancement in the rate of land the

claimants were entitled to solatium, escalation and interest on the

differential amount as has been directed by the learned tribunal by the

impugned judgement. Accordingly, it is held that the award of solatium,

escalation and interest on the differential amount arising out of

enhancement of rate of compensation for land does not call for any

interference. The point for determination on award of interest on

differential compensation is accordingly decided against the

appellant and in favour of the claimants.

2026:JHHC:15302

27

Whether the impugned judgement enhancing the compensation for

acquired land at flat rate of Rs.600/- per decimal call for any

interference?

And

Whether the appellants are entitled to deduction on account of

development cost with respect to the acquired lands of village Pindra?

56. This Court finds that it is not in dispute from the oral and

documentary evidences placed on record including the map of Mandu

Block Ramgarh District that lands of Mouza Pindra, Tiping, Parej Daru-

Kashmar, and other villages were acquired by the same process by

issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act and the map reveals that

the Mouza Pindra, Tiping, Parej and Daru Kashmar and Laiyo they fall

one after another and touching boundaries. The records further reveal

that the land in village Laiyo was acquired prior in the year 1980 under

the same Act of 1957. The extract of the map of Mandu Block (Exhibit-

2) is as under: -

57. The claimants in the present cases are from village Pindra and

they received the compensation on account of land and trees standing

thereon under protest with solatium, escalation and interest and

thereafter, the reference cases were instituted seeking enhancement of

compensation on land and also trees. They claimed compensation @

Rs. 10,000/- per decimal and in their deposition, they stated that the rate

for compensation of acquired land should be @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal.

The claimants led oral evidence with respect to the market value of the

acquired properties, but not even a single sale deed was exhibited from

their side. Further, even the appellants here in, who were opposite party

before the learned tribunal, did not produce any sale although, in their

2026:JHHC:15302

28

evidence they asserted that while fixing the compensation, the market

value of the acquired property was assessed on the basis of sale deeds

from registry office. Further, the Exhibit-D, which is the only document

produced by the appellant (CCL) showing assessment of rate of

acquired land also did not refer to any sale deed or any information

received from registry office or even the circle rate, but simply referred

to the classification of land under Dhan-I, Dhan-II, Dhan-III, Tanr-I,

Tanr-II and Tanr-III and others and rate for compensation against each

head, but nothing was mentioned as to from where the rates were

derived. Further, no material was placed on record to show as to which

of the acquired properties were of one or the other category. It was also

observed in Exhibit-D that the additional compensation in the form of

escalation, solatium and interest will be added to the rate of

compensation. It is also important to note that the Exhibit-D was placed

on record before the learned tribunal only at the time of arguments of

the case.

58. This Court further finds that on the one hand no sale deeds were

produced by either party to show exemplar sales for the purpose of

compensation for acquired land and it has been argued by the learned

counsel for the appellants that in order to claim higher compensation, it

was for the claimants to place on record appropriate materials and the

onus was upon the claimants.

59. It is true that the claimants failed to produce any sale deed for

comparison with respect to the acquired land of the same mouza or in

the vicinity of the mouza. However, they exhibited two judgments with

respect to acquisition of villages contiguous to the acquired land and

Exhibit-1/A was arising out of the same process of acquisition as

involved in this case : -

Exhibit-1 Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 31.03.1995

passed in Appeal arising out of Original Order

Nos.18-47/1993(R) relating to payment of

compensation of the lands of Village- Laiyo, P.S.-

Mandu, District- Hazaribag

Exhibit-1/A Photocopy of C.C. of Judgment dated 01.03.1994

passed by the Tribunal under Coal Bearing Areas

2026:JHHC:15302

29

(A&D) Act in 16 reference cases relating to the lands

of Village- Parej and Daru Kashmar

60. Thus, it cannot be said that no materials were placed on record

by the claimants to seek enhancement of compensation for the acquired

land. The Exhibits 1 and 1/A were put to the witnesses of the appellant

during cross examination to which they were completely silent/

expressed that they are not aware although they were the acquirer in all

the cases including the present one.

61. So far as village Laiyo (Exhibit-1) is concerned, the lands were

acquired in 1980 vide notification published in the gazette on

01.03.1980 under section 4 which is prior to the acquisition in the

present case which is dated 13.01.1981 under Section 4. So far as

acquisition of land for the village Parej and Daru Kashmar are

concerned the same were arising out of the same notification for

acquisition as involved in the present cases.

62. In the aforesaid two exhibits, Exhibit 1 and 1/A , numerous sale

deeds were exhibited. For village Laiyo, the compensation was fixed by

the learned tribunal at flat rate of Rs.1200/- per decimal which was

under challenge before this court. Vide Exhibit-1 passed by this Court

for village Laiyo, the compensation at flat rate was upheld by observing

that the acquirer had failed to substantiate different classes of land

acquired and nothing was brought on record to prove the fact that the

lands acquired in village Laiyo were of different classes and did not

possess similar potentialities. However, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and numerous sale deeds produced for

consideration, the compensation at flat rate of Rs. 1200/- per decimal as

fixed by tribunal was reduced to Rs.600/- per decimal and the judgment

and award were modified to that extent. The findings in paragraph 28

and 29 with respect to village Laiyo as decided by this Court reducing

compensation at flat rate of Rs. 1200/- per decimal to Rs. 600/- per

decimal is quoted as under:-

“28. The acquirer has failed to substantiate different classes of

lands acquired and nothing has been brought on record to prove

the fact that the lands acquired in village Laiyo were of different

2026:JHHC:15302

30

classes and did not possess similar potentiality and, therefore, in

my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in fixing compensation at a

flat rate for the entire acquired lands.

29. In the aforesaid circumstances, the compensation fixed at the

flat rate of Rs.1200/- year decimal by the Tribunal is reduced to

Rs.600/- per decimal and the impugned judgement and award are

modified to this extent only.”

63. This Court finds that in the present case also the appellant herein

neither placed on record any material to substantiate different classes of

land were acquired and that the lands acquired did not possess similar

potentialities. It is common case with respect to the acquired land of

concerned villages that the land was falling in the vicinity of collieries

and in the present case a haat was also been organized since much prior

to acquisition of land.

64. In such circumstances, this Court is also of the considered view

that the tribunal was justified in fixing compensation at the flat rate for

the entire acquired land for village Pindra at flat rate which is involved

in this case.

65. This Court finds that the learned tribunal while fixing the rate of

compensation has followed the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court

in Appeal No. 18 to 47 of 1993 (R) [Exhibit-1] with respect to village

Laiyo and fixed the compensation @ Rs.600/ per decimal as the High

Court had reduced the compensation for village Laiyo in the aforesaid

manner. It is important to note that the learned tribunal did not consider

the Exhibit-1/A where the compensation at flat rate was fixed @

Rs.727/- per decimal with deduction of 20% as development cost with

respect to village Parej and Daru Kashmar primarily on the ground that

it was not clear as to whether the same has been challenged in the High

court.

66. The learned tribunal also granted solatium, interest and

escalation on the differential amount of compensation as the same was

already paid with respect to the assessed amount by the concerned

authority.

67. During the course of hearing, it has come to light and judgment

of the tribunal passed in the case of Parej and Daru Kahsmar (exhibit-

2026:JHHC:15302

31

1/A) was subject matter of appeal before this Court in the Miscellaneous

Appeal No. 50 of 1995 and another analogous cases which was decided

vide judgment dated 10.11.2004 and ultimately this Court reduced the

compensation over land from Rs.727/- per decimal with deduction on

account of development charges @20% to Rs.600/- per decimal with

deduction on account of development charges @20%. The said

judgment was subject matter of consideration in L.P.A no. 2 of 2005

and other analogous cases in appeals filed by the Union of India through

CCL whereby this Court upheld the award on account of solatium to be

paid @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15%

per annum for the subsequent year till actual payment and the appeal

was dismissed. The judgement of the LPA reveals that there was no

challenge to the flat rate of compensation @ 600/- per decimal.

68. This Court finds that the facts and circumstances of the present

case with respect to fixation of rate of compensation @ Rs.600/- per

decimal is similar to that of Laiyo and also that of village Daru Kashmar

and Parej, except that village Laiyo was acquired one year prior to the

acquisition of land involved in this case. So far as village Parej and

Daru Kasmar are concerned they were acquired through the same

notifications and process involved in the present cases whereby the

compensation at flat rate has been upheld. For village Laiyo and also

for village Daru Kashmar and Parej the rate of compensation for land

has been fixed @ Rs.600/- per decimal, but in villages Daru Kashmar

and Parej deduction on account of development cost has been allowed

by 20%.

69. This Court is of the considered view that there is no reason to

take a different view than what has been taken by learned tribunal in the

present case while passing the impugned judgment so far as the rate of

compensation for land @ Rs.600/- is concerned.

70. This Court is of the considered view that the judgments which

have been passed with respect to adjoining villages and acquired by the

same process are certainly important materials placed before the court

for consideration in the circumstances where the sale deed of the

concerned village has not been placed on record from either side and

the compensation awarded was not substantiated by CCL through any

2026:JHHC:15302

32

cogent material placed on record although they claimed in their

evidence that they had examined and fixed compensation on the basis

of sale deeds from the registry office, but neither any such sale deed has

been produced nor the materials has been on record to show that any

such sale deed were taken into consideration. Even the Exhibit-D does

not show as to how the compensation was fixed and there is no materials

on record with respect to the classification of land.

71. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment

passed by the learned tribunal fixing the compensation @Rs.600/- per

decimal flat rate with respect to village Pindra is a well reasoned

judgment and does not call for any interference.

72. So far as the claim of deduction on account of development cost

is concerned, this Court finds that with respect to village Laiyo, the

concerned tribunal had not made any deduction on account of

development charges. However, with respect to village Parej and Daru

Kashmar, a deduction was made by the learned tribunal itself with

respect to development charges to the extent of 20% and such deduction

was not interfered with by this Court in appeal and this Court, except

reducing the compensation from Rs.727/- to Rs.600/- per decimal, did

not interfere with the award of the learned tribunal.

73. The judgment which has been relied upon by the appellants with

respect to deduction on account of development charges clearly

revealed that there can be no automatic deduction on account of

development charges and it varies from one case to another case

depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and materials

placed on record. In the present case, no iota of evidence/material has

placed on record to claim any deduction on account of development

charges much less deduction to the extent of 20%. In the present case,

the lands with trees were acquired for the purpose of extraction of coal

and no material has been placed on record by the appellants, either

before the learned tribunal or before this Court, to claim any

development charges or to claim that any development of acquired land

was required. The land acquired for extraction of coal is essentially for

mining purposes and with respect to the village Pindra, no such claim

of deduction was ever made before the tribunal and no material has been

2026:JHHC:15302

33

placed to claim a deduction on account of development charges. Even

the concerned authorities while computing the compensation had not

made any deduction on account of development charges.

74. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants claiming

deduction charges from the rate of compensation of land is completely

misplaced and is not based on any material/evidence placed on record.

75. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Mala and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2023) 9 SCC

315: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663, the principles with regards deduction on

account of development cost has been considered. It was argued before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is well-settled position of law that

while determining the deduction for development charges, the courts

should keep in mind the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether

the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, the purpose of

acquisition, etc. Though, it is true that while determining the market

value of large chunk of land, the value of smaller pieces of land could

be taken into consideration, however, after making appropriate

deduction in the value of lands or setting apart land required for carving

out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, etc. The

percentage of deduction or the extent of area required to be set apart has

to be assessed by the courts having regard to the size, shape, situation,

user, etc. of the lands acquired. It is essentially a kind of guess work the

courts are expected to undertake.

76. The Hon’ble Supreme court referred to various judgements on

the point of deduction of development cost as follows: -

15. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO, (1988) 3 SCC 751,

this Court held as under:

“8. … The first two grounds are devoid of merit. It is

common knowledge that when a large block of land is

required to be valued, appropriate deduction has to be

made for setting aside land for carving out roads,

leaving open spaces, and plotting out smaller plots

suitable for construction of buildings. The extent of the

area required to be set apart in this connection has to

be assessed by the court having regard to the shape,

size and situation of the concerned block of land, etc.

There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how much

deduction should be made to account for this factor. It

2026:JHHC:15302

34

is essentially a question of fact depending on the facts

and circumstances of each case. It does not involve

drawing upon any principle of law.”

16. In Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769,

this Court held that:

“14. The “deduction for development” consists of two

components. The first is with reference to the area

required to be utilised for developmental works and the

second is the cost of the development works. For

example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or

similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40%

of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks,

playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities),

etc.

15. The development authority will also incur

considerable expenditure for development of

undeveloped land into a developed layout, which

includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing

roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities,

laying water lines, electricity lines and developing

parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35%

of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken

together would be the “deduction for development” and

can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the

developed plot.

16-21***

22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory

development authorities may have large areas

earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water

tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the

usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks,

playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The

purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that

the “deduction for development” factor is a variable

percentage and the range of percentage itself being

very wide from 20% to 75%.”

17. This Court in the judgment in Kasturi v. State of

Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 held that there may be various

factual factors which may have to be taken into

consideration while applying the cut in payment of

compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in

some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than

1/3rd. This Court held as under :

“7. … However, in cases of some land where there are

certain advantages by virtue of the developed area

around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to

be applied, as the developmental charges required may

be less on that account. There may be various factual

factors which may have to be taken into consideration

while applying the cut in payment of compensation

2026:JHHC:15302

35

towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases

it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd.

It must be remembered that there is difference between

a developed area and an area having potential value,

which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is

developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso

facto make every land situated in the area also

developed to be valued as a building site or plot,

particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this

case, for development purpose.”

77. The aforesaid judgements clearly reveal that in order to claim

development cost there has to be some material relating to the

development of the acquired land by the acquirer. It has been held that

the “deduction for development” consists of two components. The first

is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental

works and the second is the cost of the development works. For

example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory

authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for

roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community

facilities), etc.

78. In the present case, the land having been acquired for mining of

coal and there is no evidence or even a statement as to what

development is required to be made for the acquired land, the arguments

of the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be some

deduction on account of development cost. The question of deduction

on account of development cost through guess work arises only when

there is some evidence on the point of required development of the

acquired land and in absence of any material, no deduction on account

of development cost can be made. Thus, the learned tribunal has rightly

not granted any deduction on account of development cost. In fact,

deduction on account of development cost was neither claimed nor any

material was produced to substantiate the claim of deduction on account

of development cost. The appellant is not entitled to any deduction on

account of development cost. Thus, is held that the compensation for

the acquired Land Rs.600/- per decimal dies not call for any interference

and the appellant is not entitled to any deduction on account of

development cost in the absence of any material that development of

2026:JHHC:15302

36

the acquired land for coal mining, much less nature of development of

the land, was required.

79. The compensation for acquired land as enhanced by the learned

tribunal to Rs.600/- per decimal and other components with regards to

Solatium, Escalation, Interest on differential amount does not call for

any interference.

80. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

81. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not

pressed.

82. Let this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court

through “Fax/E-mail”.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

19.05.2026

Binit /Rakesh

Uploaded on:- 20.05.2026