VIJAY KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 17th July, ,2009 (Annexure3 to the memo of petition), passed in Scheduled Area Regulation Appeal No. 17 R -15 of 2002 -03, as well as the order, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, dated 30th November, 2009, passed in Scheduled Area Regulation Revision No. 85 of 2009 (Annexure -5 to the memo of petition), whereby, both the authorities below have enhanced the amount of compensation, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1905 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1905 for the sake of brevity). The first authority i.e. Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, has fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 15,000/ - per Kattha, whereas the appellate authority has fixed the said amount of compensation, upon an appeal preferred by the original applicants of an application under Section 71 A of the Act, 1905, at Rs. 1,48,000/ - per Kattha. This order passed by the lower appellate authority has been confirmed by the revisional authority i. e. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, upon a revision preferred by the petitioners.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no reason, worth the name, has been assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in the impugned order dated 17th July, 2009 (Annexure -3) for enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs.1,48,000/ -. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land, in question, is having Plot No's. 98, 99, 100 and 101, appertaining to Khata No. 53, of Thana No. 203, Police Station -Sukhdeo Nagar, Mauza -Hehal, District -Ranchi and for comparison, the petitioners have submitted that as per the registered sale deed of Plot No. 97, the price of the land is Rs. 25,000/ - per Kattha and for another Plot, it is Rs. 48,000/ - per Kattha, as stated in the internal page no. 3 and internal page no. 4 of the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 17th July, 2009 and, therefore, even if the case of the respondents is taken on its highest pitch, the amount of compensation can only exceed up to Rs. 48,000/per kattha. Nonetheless, the petitioners as per the order dated 30th March, 2010, passed in this writ petition, have deposited Rs. 50,000/ - per Kattha before the first authority. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the figure of Rs. 1, 48,000/ - per Kattha as compensation cannot come in the mind of - the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, from heaven or sky, as there ought to have been some basis. Looking to the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 17th July, 2009 (Annexure -3), the order passed by the Deputy commissioner is thoroughly a non -speaking order and is a baseless one, because the highest price of the land, situated in the nearby vicinity of the land, in question, is Rs. 48,000/per Kattha whereas the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has fixed the amount of compensation at a rate of Rs. 1,48,000/per Kattha and, therefore, such an excessive and exorbitant amount of compensation deserves to be quashed and set aside. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the revisional authority i.e. by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, while passing the order dated 30th November, 2009 (Annexure -5) and the reasons, whatsoever given by that revisional authority, are not the reasons in the eyes of law, because in paragraph no. 7 of the order, passed by the revisional authority, it has been stated that the land, in question, is nearer to the Bank of India, Main Branch, Pandra and also keeping in mind the value fixed by the Government, the compensation of the land in question, has been fixed at Rs.1,48,000/ -.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these reasons are no reasons in the eyes of law, because a copy of the governmental valuation, which has been relied upon by the revisional authority, was never supplied to the writ petitioners. The revisional authority cannot rely upon a document, which has never been given to the petitioners. Moreover, merely because the land is situated nearby the Bank of India, Main Branch, Pandra, it does not amount that the compensation of the land will be at Rs. 1,48,000/ - and, therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.