IMPORTANT POINT
[The determination of compensation for land acquisition must be based on the market value at the time of notification, considering comparable sales and the land's potential, with reasonable deductions for development costs.]

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. These first appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 28.07.2014 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, L.A., Hazaribagh in separate land reference cases, whereby the said learned Court has allowed the claim of the respondents /claimants and enhanced the rate of compensation, as such, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. This batch of appeals arising out of Land Reference Case Nos. 52/2010 to 57/2010 & 60/2010. All these land reference cases arose out of Land Acquisition Case No. 14/2005-2006.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land under acquisition proceedings were acquired way back in the year 2006 vide Gazette Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under declaration No. 75/Ra. dated 03.02.2006, which was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh against the award prepared by the Collector, Ramgarh upon the application of the raiyati for enhancement of the compensation, but the application for enhancement has been filed by the claimants in the year 2010 i.e. after approximately four years.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that for the purpose of determining the compensation, the market value of land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 03.02.2006 would be the relevant date while in the instant case, no material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that the market value of land in the year 2006 was more than the rate determined by the authorities under the Act.

5. It is further submitted that the competent authority before preparation of awards, a valuation report was prepared and all necessary precautions were taken in calculating and fixing the value as required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were taken and therefore, no enhancement of compensation was required.

6. It is further submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the Sale Deeds of previous three years i.e. prior to acquisition, were duly considered for calculating the average rate of lands of different categories which were fair, just and proper and the respective rates were duly approved and accordingly the compensation amount had been fixed by preparing awards by Collector. Therefore, the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Courts below are illegal.

7. It is further submitted that different categories of land were acquired pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the learned Court below erred in fixing the compensation amount at an enhanced rate of Rs. 3,238/- decimal ignoring the classification of lands as per the record of rights and therefore the impugned judgment is illegal and bad. Moreover, the learned court below ought to have allowed atleast 20% deduction towards development cost in view of the judgment of the Apex Court report in AIR 1997 SC 1791, (2003) 10 SCC 525 as also in the case reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5241.

8. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate that all the development work near the area has taken place at the instance of Central Coalfields Limited, the benefit of which cannot be given to the claimants.

9. It is further submitted that the court below has failed to take into consideration that in the earlier judgment dated 29.09.2010 passed in similar L.R. Case being L.R. Case No. 45/2009 to 51/2009 and 53/2009 to 79/2009 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 06/2005-06 of the same project and decided by the then Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh considering similar set of evidences, the highest rate of Dhan-I land assessed by the Government were found to be just and proper on comparing the documents fil