DINESHWAR PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 6 -8 -1988 passed by Shri Bishwanath Prasad, Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957, in Reference Case No, 1 of 1987.

(2.) An area of 7.61 acres of land appertaining to Khata Nos. 1, 3 and 4 together with four Sakhua trees belonging to the original claimant Jitan Lal S/o Ganpat Lal of Village Dania, Police Station Gomia in the district of Giridih were acquired by the Central Government and after acquisition determined the valuation of the different kinds of lands on the following rates: Tand I & Paddy I: At the rate of Rs. 12,700/ - per acre. Paddy II : At the rate of Rs. 7.940/ - per acre Paddy III : At the rate of Rs. 6.350/ - per acre Tanr II : At the rate of Rs. 3,175/ - per acre Tanr III : At the rate of Rs. 1.588/ - per acre. Parti Kadim : At the rate of Rs. 1.059/ - per acre.

(3.) Besides the above valuation, the Central Government has also fixed Rs. 20/ - as a valuation of one Sakhua tree and offered the valuation of different kinds of lands and the above said four Sakhua trees to Jitan Lal who received compensation as assessed on protest and filed a petition for referring the compensation matter to the tribunal. In the meantime, Jitan Lal died and in his place, the appellant i.e. his widow Smt. Malti Devi alias Shakuntala Devi and son Dineshwar Prasad have been substituted. According to the claimants, 7.61 acres of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 510, 52.1, 523, 524 and 527 under Khata No. 1 and Plot No. 543 in Khata No. 2 and plot Nos. 414, 415, 454 and 455 of Khata No. 4 have been acquired by the Central Government as per the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (the Act) but the classification of the lands have not been correctly done and such classification had been based upon the entries made in the survey record of rights published long back in the year 1908 without any spot verification at the time of acquisition whether the classification remained so. According to the claimants, Plot No. 510 having an area of 2.56 acres of Khata No. 1 is a Don Class I land but it was shown as Class III Tanr land in the assessment of compensation. Similarly Plot Nos. 523 and 524 of the said Khata are Don Class I paddy land but the same had been shown as Class III Tanr land, 'Dhankhet'. Regarding other plots also, some objections have been made to the effect that the whole of the lands were either paddy land or tanr land as the claimants since their predecessors after hard labour had changed the nature of the land originally registered in the survey record of rights in the year 1908. The land is situated in the Industrial area being surrounded by different collieries and washeries. It was further alleged that a subsequent report from Shri U.P. Sinha, Revenue Officer and Sita Ram Singh and Nilpat Singh Munda, Revenue Inspectors, Charhi was called for as per the direction of the then Project Officer, Basantpur Washery. The lands acquired were found to be paddy growing tanr lands and that the claimants were having the income of Rs. 10,000/ - per year being the price of the paddy produce in the don lands and Rs. 5,000/ - per year being the price of paddy produced in the tanr lands but because of acquisition, the claimants had been deprived of their said income and as such they are entitled to get damage on account of loss of income. The claimants had prayed that the marked value of the lands in question should not be fixed less than Rs. 80,000/ - per acre. The claimants had also claimed solatium and interest as permissible under the law. The Central Government as referencer had also filed rejoinder and alleged that the rates of different classes of lands had been fixed at by comparing sale figure of the different deeds of the vicinity for the year 1980 as required under the said Act and compensation had also been paid as per determination being made under the Land Acquisition Act for similar land in the vicinity. They have denied that the classification has not been done as per the survey record of rights in 1908 rather the entries made in the authentication report prepared at the spot by the Circle Officer, Gomia, who is the custodian of the revenue records and as such the classification cannot be challenged.