HEMLAL MAHTO vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMGARH
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:27828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 303 of 2026
1. Chamu Munda, Son Of Late Lachhu Munda, Aged About 44 Years,
Resident Of Village And P.o.- Gandke, Police Station: Ramgarh,
District: Ramgarh, State: Jharkhand
2. Ramu Munda, Son Of Late Lachhu Munda, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident Of Village And P.o.- Gandke, Police Station: Ramgarh,
District: Ramgarh, State: Jharkhand
… … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh P.o.- Ramgarh, Police Station:
Ramgarh, District: Ramgarh, State: Jharkhand
2. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.o.- Ramgarh, Police Station: Ramgarh, District:
Ramgarh, State: Jharkhand.
… … Opp. Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 298 of 2026
1. Hemlal Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
2. Shivcharan Mahto aged about 43 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
3. Roushanlal Mahto aged about 61 year S/o late Bishun Mahto,
4. Harakh Nath Mahto aged about 54 year S/o late Deolal Mahto @
Dev Dayal Mahto,
5. Asheshwar Mahto aged about 60 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
6. Ghuneshwar Mahto aged about 41 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
7. Jagdish Mahto aged about 52 year S/o late Nanku Mahto,
8. Salikh Mahto aged about 85 year S/o late Kartik Mahto,
9. Jagarnath Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Kartik Mahto, All are
resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opp. Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 300 of 2026
1. Chamu Munda aged about 44 year,
2. Ramu Munda aged about 38 year,
Both are sons of late Lachhu Munda, resident of Village & P.O. -
Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
… … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2026:JHHC:27828
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opp. Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 304 of 2026
1. Ramphal Munda aged about 67 year S/o late Kamal Godayat,
2. Naresh Munda aged about 57 year S/o late Gudan Munda,
3. Rajesh Munda aged about 42 year S/o late Suresh Munda,
4. Lal Mohan Munda aged about 55 year S/o late Titku Munda,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opp. Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 343 of 2026
1. Bishun Ganjhu aged about 76 year S/o late Puran Ganjhu,
2. Yogendar Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
3. Digendar Ganjhu aged about 35 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
4. Tileshwar Ganjhu aged about 30 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
5. Omprakash Ganjhu aged about 28 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
6. Surendar Ganjhu aged about 23 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
7. Mangra Ganjhu aged about 60 year S/o late Jagdeo Ganjhu,
8. Ashok Bhokta aged about 49 year S/o late Jagdeo Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 344 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
2
2026:JHHC:27828
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 345 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 346 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 348 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
3
2026:JHHC:27828
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 349 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 350 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 351 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
4
2026:JHHC:27828
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 352 of 2026
1. Bishun Ganjhu aged about 76 year S/o late Puran Ganjhu,
2. Yogendar Bhogta aged about 38 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
3. Digendar Ganjhu aged about 35 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
4. Tileshwar Ganjhu aged about 30 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
5. Omprakash Ganjhu aged about 28 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
6. Surendar Ganjhu aged about 23 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 353 of 2026
1. Bishun Ganjhu aged about 76 year S/o late Puran Ganjhu,
2. Yogendar Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
3. Digendar Ganjhu aged about 35 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
4. Tileshwar Ganjhu aged about 30 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
5. Omprakash Ganjhu aged about 28 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
6. Surendar Ganjhu aged about 23 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
7. Mangra Ganjhu aged about 60 year S/o late Jagdeo Ganjhu,
8. Ashok Bhogta aged about 49 year S/o late Jagdeo Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 354 of 2026
1. Bishun Ganjhu aged about 76 year S/o late Puran Ganjhu,
2. Yogendar Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
3. Digendar Ganjhu aged about 35 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
4. Tileshwar Ganjhu aged about 30 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
5. Omprakash Ganjhu aged about 28 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
6. Surendar Ganjhu aged about 23 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
5
2026:JHHC:27828
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 364 of 2026
1. Jaleshwar Mahto aged about 62 year S/o late Lakhan Mahto,
2. Kuleshwar Mahto aged about 48 year S/o late Lakhan Mahto,
Both are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 365 of 2026
1. Bishun Ganjhu aged about 76 year S/o late Puran Ganjhu,
2. Yogendar Bhogta aged about 38 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
3. Digendar Ganjhu aged about 35 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
4. Tileshwar Ganjhu aged about 30 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
5. Omprakash Ganjhu aged about 28 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
6. Surendar Ganjhu aged about 23 year S/o late Rameshwar Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 369 of 2026
1. Kundan Mahto aged about 61 year S/o late Radhanath Mahto,
2. Mukhlal Mahto aged about 55 year S/o late Radhanath Mahto,
3. Kauleshwar Mahto aged about 51 year S/o late Radhanath Mahto,
4. Hiralal Mahto aged about 47 year S/o late Radhanath Mahto,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
6
2026:JHHC:27828
With
F.A. No. 370 of 2026
1. Abdul Minhaz aged about 60 year S/o late Ismail Miya,
2. Sahid Ansari aged about 56 year S/o late Ismail Miya,
3. Kyum Ansari aged about 38 year S/o late Ismail Miya,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 371 of 2026
1. Ramkeshwar Bhogta, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Khakhandu
Bhiogta
2. Butani Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o Late Parmeshwar Bhogta
3. Kinu Ganjhu, aged about 76 years, S/o late Amrit Ganjhu
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 372 of 2026
1. Ramkeshwar Bhogta, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Khakhandu
Bhiogta
2. Butani Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o Late Parmeshwar Bhogta
3. Kinu Ganjhu, aged about 76 years, S/o late Amrit Ganjhu
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 373 of 2026
1. Ramkeshwar Bhogta, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Khakhandu
Bhiogta
2. Butani Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o Late Parmeshwar Bhogta
3. Kinu Ganjhu, aged about 76 years, S/o late Amrit Ganjhu
7
2026:JHHC:27828
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 374 of 2026
1. Ramkeshwar Bhogta aged about 50-year S/o late Khakhandu
Bhiokta,
2. Butani Devi aged about 43 year W/o late Parmeshwar Bhokta,
3. Kinu Ganjhu aged about 76 year S/o late Amrit Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
F.A. No. 375 of 2026
1. Ramkeshwar Bhogta, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Khakhandu
Bhiogta
2. Butani Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o Late Parmeshwar Bhogta
3. Kinu Ganjhu, aged about 76 years, S/o late Amrit Ganjhu
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 376 of 2026
1. Ramkeshwar Bhogta aged about 50 year S/o late Khakhandu
Bhiogta,
2. Butani Devi aged about 43 year W/o late Parmeshwar Bhogta,
3. Kinu Ganjhu aged about 76 year S/o late Amrit Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
8
2026:JHHC:27828
With
F.A. No. 394 of 2026
1. Ranjeet Ganjhu aged about 62 year S/o late Meghu Ganjhu,
2. Ramnandan Ganjhu aged about 46 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
3. Jaynandan Ganjhu aged about 50 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
4. Binod Ganjhu aged about 38 year S/o late Sonaram Ganjhu,
5. Suresh Ganjhu aged about 51 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
6. Naresh Ganjhu aged about 49 year S/o late Ramnath Ganjhu,
7. Sohan Ganjhu aged about 25 year S/o Ramkishun Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 395 of 2026
1. Chunilal Mahto, aged about 65 years, S/o late Meghu Mahto
2. Sumiram Mahto, aged about 74 years, S/o late Meghu Mahto.
3. Sumitra Devi aged about 72 years, W/o late Gunaram Mahto
4. Laxmi Devi, aged about 51 years, W/o late Munilal Mahto
5. Rajeshwar Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o late Sewlal Mahto
6. Mahendar Mahto, aged about 60 years, S/o late Mayaram Mahto
7. Jitu Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o late Mayaram Mahto
8. Jayanti Devi, aged about 55 years, W/o late Parasnath Mahto
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District-
Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 396 of 2026
1. Chunilal Mahto, aged about 65 years, S/o late Meghu Mahto
2. Sumiram Mahto, aged about 74 years, S/o late Meghu Mahto.
3. Sumitra Devi aged about 72 years, W/o late Gunaram Mahto
4. Laxmi Devi, aged about 51 years, W/o late Munilal Mahto
All are resident of Village & P.O. - Gandke, P.S. & District-
Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
9
2026:JHHC:27828
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 397 of 2026
1. Mangra Ganjhu aged about 60 year S/o late Jagdeo Ganjhu,
2. Ashok Bhogta aged about 49 year S/o late Jagdeo Ganjhu,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District-
Ramgarh, Jharkhand.. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 417 of 2026
1. Hemlal Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
2. Shivcharan Mahto aged about 43 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
3. Roushanlal Mahto aged about 61 year S/o late Bishun Mahto,
4. Harakh Nath Mahto aged about 54 year S/o late Deolal Mahto @
Dev Dayal Mahto,
5. Asheshwar Mahto aged about 60 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
6. Ghuneshwar Mahto aged about 41 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
7. Jagdish Mahto aged about 52 year S/o late Nanku Mahto,
8. Salikh Mahto aged about 85 year S/o late Kartik Mahto,
9. Jagarnath Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Kartik Mahto,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opp. Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 418 of 2026
1. Hemlal Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
2. Shivcharan Mahto aged about 43 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
3. Roushanlal Mahto aged about 61 year S/o late Bishun Mahto,
4. Harakh Nath Mahto aged about 54 year S/o late Deolal Mahto @
Dev Dayal Mahto,
5. Asheshwar Mahto aged about 60 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
6. Ghuneshwar Mahto aged about 41 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
7. Jagdish Mahto aged about 52 year S/o late Nanku Mahto,
8. Salikh Mahto aged about 85 year S/o late Kartik Mahto,
9. Jagarnath Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Kartik Mahto,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
10
2026:JHHC:27828
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opp. Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 419 of 2026
1. Hemlal Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
2. Shivcharan Mahto aged about 43 year S/o late Ramlal Mahto,
3. Roushanlal Mahto aged about 61 year S/o late Bishun Mahto,
4. Harakh Nath Mahto aged about 54 year S/o late Deolal Mahto @
Dev Dayal Mahto,
5. Asheshwar Mahto aged about 60 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
6. Ghuneshwar Mahto aged about 41 year S/o late Kaila Mahto,
7. Jagdish Mahto aged about 52 year S/o late Nanku Mahto,
8. Salikh Mahto aged about 85 year S/o late Kartik Mahto,
9. Jagarnath Mahto aged about 73 year S/o late Kartik Mahto,
All are resident of Village & P.O.- Gandke, P.S. & District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. … … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
2. Executive Engineer Road Construction Department Division
Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
… … Opp. Parties/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate
: Mr. Dhananjay Prasad Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC-I
: Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I
: Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to G.A.-I
: Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I
: Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-II
: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary,
AC to SC (L&C)-II
: Mr. Mukul Kumar, AC to GP-III
: Mr. Shashank Kumar, AC to GP-IV
: Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV
---
CAV on 07.09.2026 Pronounced on 15.09.2026
1. All these first appeals have been filed under Section 74 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act of 2013”) against the common Judgement dated 24.02.2025
and the respective awards passed by the learned Principal District
Judge-cum-L.A.R.R.A, Hazaribag, in different Land Reference Cases
11
2026:JHHC:27828
arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 09 of 2019-20 in connection
with acquisition of lands for the purpose of widening and strengthening
of Lalki Ghati to Marang Marcha (N.H. 23) Road vide Notification No.
407 dated 01.07.2019 under section 11 of the Act of 2013 and
Declaration No.109/L.A. dated 18.02.2020, whereby and whereunder
the learned Principal District Judge-cum-L.A.R.R.A., Hazaribag has
enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven
Thousand) per decimal from Rs.3740/- per decimal as determined by
the learned District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh. The appellants
seek enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. They claimed
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per decimal.
2. Basic details with respect to the appeals as given by the
Appellants during court proceedings on 07.09.2026
Village–Gandke,
L.A. Case No. 09/2019-20,
Project Name: Widening & Strengthening of Lalki Ghati to Marang
Marcha (N.H. 23) Road.
Notification No.407/L.A., dated 01.07.2019,
Declaration No. 109/L.A., dated 18.03.2020,
Collector Fixed compensation @ Rs. 3740/- per Decimal, the learned
court Fixed @ Rs.11,000/- per Decimal and Claim is @ Rs.1,50,000/-
per Decimal.
Cases involved in the batch of these appeals.
Area
L.R. Case
S.N. F.A. No.
Award
Khata Plot
No.
(in
decimal)
1. 303/2026 622/2022 87 29 1190 3
2. 298/2026 652/2022 68 45 1182 12
3. 300/2026 621/2022 88 29 1189 2
4. 304/2026 651/2022 60 40 394 5
5. 343/2026 645/2022 43 39 383 8
6. 344/2026 659/2022 57 39 1028 3
7. 345/2026 670/2022 37 39 90 3
8. 346/2026 663/2022 41 39 164 1
9. 348/2026 661/2022 38 39 91 16
10. 349/2026 664/2022 34 39 75 1
11. 350/2026 665/2022 40 39 163 1
12. 351/2026 662/2022 39 39 162 2
13. 352/2026 647/2022 58 39 1361 1
14. 353/2026 671/2022 56 39 1357 2
15. 354/2026 646/2022 55 39 1031 3
16. 364/2026 667/2022 33 39 60 2
17. 365/2026 619/2022 46 39 386 4
18. 369/2026 668/2022 53 39 1028 4
No.
12
2026:JHHC:27828
19. 370/2026 635/2022 31 31 1241 3
20. 371/2026 628/2022 50 39 392 1
21. 372/2026 629/2022 35 39 76 1
22. 373/2026 626/2022 44 39 384 12
23. 374/2026 624/2022 47 39 388 1
24. 375/2026 630/2022 36 39 74 1
25. 376/2026 625/2022 93 48 416 2
26. 394/2026 660/2022 51 39 419 6
27. 395/2026 633/2022 18 20 1010 4
28. 396/2026 632/2022 92 16 1570 8
29. 397/2026 620/2022 45 39 385 2
30. 417/2026 653/2022 70 45 1377 4
31. 418/2026 655/2022 69 45 1375 9
32. 419/2026 654/2022 67 45 1181 3
Total area= 130 decimals
3. It is not in dispute that about 5.17 acres of land of different
Khatas of Mouza- Gandke, Thana No. 99, Revenue Thana Ramgarh,
Anchal Ramgarh in the district of Ramgarh were acquired for the
purpose of widening and strengthening of Lalki Ghati to Marang
Marcha (N.H. 23) Road vide aforesaid notification dated 01.07.2019
under section 11 of the Act of 2013. It is not in dispute that the learned
District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh fixed flat rate of
compensation at Rs.3740/- per decimal which was the circle rate.
Admittedly, no sale deed could be found for consideration even by the
said authority with respect to the Mouza- Gandke for finding out the
market value of the acquired land and even the appellants/claimants
have not produced any sale deed of the concerned village for
consideration by the court.
4. The learned Principal District Judge-cum-L.A.R.R.A.,
Hazaribag framed the following point for determination: -
“Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioners
should be enhanced?”
5. The applicants/awardees/appellants examined two witnesses in
support of their claims. P.W.-1 is Harakhnath Mahto and P.W.-2 is
Yogendra Prasad Ganjhu. They have exhibited as many as 7 sale deeds
and two maps which were marked X and X/1 for identification. The
opposite party examined only one witness as D.W-1 and exhibited three
documents, marked as exhibit A [notification under section 11(1) of the
Act of 2013], exhibit B [notification under section 19(1) of the Act of
13
2026:JHHC:27828
2013] and exhibit- C (the Map). Both the parties have also filed their
written submissions after completion of arguments in the court.
6. Arguments of the appellants
A. The appellants in the different awards, being dissatisfied with the
amount awarded by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh,
had preferred the reference petitions under section 64 of the Act of 2013
which was referred to the learned court. The appellants assailed the
acquisition, inter alia , on the ground that, market value fixed for the
land acquired is very low from the prevailing market rate, at the time of
the notification under section 11 of the Act of 2013.
B. Since no sale transaction of lands from the year 2016 to 2019 of village
Gandke was found (exhibit-C), as Gandke is declared CNT village,
hence the appellants have taken the shelter of Section 26 (b),
Explanation 2 of the aforesaid Act of 2013 and produced total seven
sale deeds of adjacent villages (Kankebara and Murramkala) for
calculation and determination of average rate of their acquired lands.
All the deeds are of residential lands, which were exhibited as Exhibit-
1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 & 1/6.
C. Two witnesses on behalf of the appellants namely Harakhnath Mahto
and Yogendra Prasad Ganjhu have been examined, who have adduced
their statement on Affidavit that the village Gandke is very developed
village. They have stated all the amenities like Schools, Colleges, B. Ed
College, Nursing College, Hospital, Law College and Market etc. are
situated in their village Gandke. They have also clearly deposed that
village Kankebar and Murramkala are the adjacent villages to their
village Gandke.
D. For proving the adjacency of the above villages to village Gandke, the
appellants have also produced the village maps of villages- Kankebar
and Gandke, which were exhibited as X & X/1. It has seen established
by exhibit X & X/1 that Kankebar and Murramkala are the adjacent
villages to village Gandke.
One witness on behalf of the respondents has also been examined; who
in his cross-examination (para-21 of his deposition) has accepted that
the rate of land in surrounding to Ramgarh is 1 to 2 lakh rupees per
decimal. He also accepted in his cross-examination (paragraph 16 of his
deposition) that village Gandke and Kankebar are adjoining villages.
E. While referring to the impugned judgement it is submitted as under:
-
i. On the basis of sale deeds produced by the appellants, the calculation
of the Average rate of residential Land is Rs. 3,14,367/- per decimal
and agricultural land is Rs. 1,57,183/- per decimal (Calculation is at
page-66 of judgment).
ii. The acquire lands are situated on roadside; hence the lands in question
are residential and commercial, not Agricultural land. (Exhibit-A & B
is the evident).
14
2026:JHHC:27828
iii. In spite of the above proven facts the learned court has erroneously
declined to give the claimed rate of compensation for the acquired
lands of the appellants as determined under section 26(b), Explanation
2 of the Act of 2013. The reasoning has been noted as "from perusal
of the oral and documentary evidence on record it is not clear that
how much distance between the acquired land of village Gandke and
land of sale deeds of village Murramkala and Kankebar submitted by
the petitioners." (Page-70 of judgment) even though the village maps
were produced by the appellants and have been exhibited as X & X/1.
The maps speak about the adjacency of the villages. The aforesaid
finding of the learned court is erroneous.
iv. The learned court has also erroneously declined to give the prevailing
market value of the acquired lands by saying that it is much high in
compare to the government assessment. (Page-70 of judgment).
v. The reasoning given by the learned court is in violation of section
26(b) of the Act of 2013. The government's assessment is much less
than the prevailing market rate that is why the matter has been referred
under section 64 of the Act of 2013 for enhancement of compensation
amount.
vi. The learned court has ignored the statutory mandate under Section 26
of the Act and has fixed the valuation of land and ordered to give
compensation at the rate of an arbitrary figure of Rs.11,000/- per
decimal, which has no nexus either with the documentary evidence or
with the statutory methodology.
vii. The settled principle is that compensation must be based on the highest
value of comparable land in the vicinity. If the applicants produced
valid sale deeds from adjacent Village (Kankebar and Murramkala)
showing higher rates, those "exemplar" deeds must be the baseline.
Arbitrarily creating categories to dilute the market rate violates the
beneficial intent of the 2013 Act.
viii. Under established land acquisition jurisprudence, the market value is
not just determined by the land's current use but by its "potential use."
The land of the appellants situated on road side, which has immense
commercial potential. Treating it purely as agricultural land ignores
its true market value.
F. It is further submitted that:-
a) The Act of 2013 has been enacted specifically to cure the draconian
anti-farmer nature of the old 1894 Act, which view should be
considered by the courts.
b) After careful perusal of produced exemplar sale deeds, one sale deed
No. 1562 dated 23.10.2019 (ext.-5) will be excluded, since it was
executed after the notification dated 01.07.2019. As such altogether
following 6 sale deeds found to be genuine as exemplar sale deeds:
Sl
No.
Sale deed
No.
Date of
sale
deed
Village Nature of
Lands
Area in
decimal
Sale
Deed
Value Rs.
Rate/Decimal
Residential
Rate/Decimal
Agricultural
Ext.
No.
1. 831/804 30.4.16 Kankebar Residential 4.25 10,00,000 2,35,294.11 1,17,647 1
2. 938/918 14.7.17 Kankebar Residential 6.25 6,20,625 99,300 49,650 1/1
3. 1979/1931 16.11.18 Muramkala Residential 13.25 31,63,000 238716.98 1,19,358.49 1/2
15
2026:JHHC:27828
4 1378 17.11.17 Muramkala Residential 18.5 51,00,000 275675.67 1,37,837.83 1/3
5. 2084 31.12.18 Muramkala Residential 13 30,00,000 230769.23 1,15,384.61 1/4
6. 122 28.1.19 Muramkala Residential 7.5 29,70,000 396000 1,98,000 1/6
c) That out of above 6 sale deeds three higher valued sale deeds should
be taken for determination of fair market value of the acquired land of
the appellants and those are the following sale deeds.
Sl
No.
Sale deed
No.
Date of
sale
deed
Village Nature of
Lands
Area in
decimal
Sale
Deed
Value Rs.
Rate/Decimal
Residential
Rate/Decimal
Agricultural
Ext.
No.
3. 1979/1931 16.11.18 Muramkala Residential 13.25 31,63,000 238716 1,19,358 1/2
4 1378 17.11.17 Muramkala Residential 18.5 51,00,000 275675 1,37,837 1/3
6. 122 28.1.19 Muramkala Residential 7.5 29,70,000 396000 1,98,000 1/6
The average rate for Residential land would be (in round figure)
238716+275675+396000= 910391÷3=303463/-per decimal.
The average rate for agricultural land would be (in round figure)
119358+137837+198000=455195÷3=151731/- per decimal.
d) As per above calculation, the fair market value of acquired land comes
at the rate of Rs. 1,51,731/- per decimal and the appellants have paid
the court fee on the basis of their claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- per decimal,
which is nearest to Rs. 1,51,731/-.
e) The Authority has failed to appreciate that the acquired land of
appellants possessed substantial non-agricultural and developmental
potential, being acquired for construction of widening and
strengthening of Lalki Ghati to Marang Marcha NH23 Road, which
means that the lands of the appellants are on road, therefore, its market
value could not have been assessed merely on the basis of its existing
agricultural use.
f) The settled principle of law is that the market value has to be
determined considering the highest bona fide comparable sale
instances and the potentiality of the land and not merely on the basis
of its present use.
g) The reasons assigned by the Authority for reducing the market value
are neither supported by evidence nor by any provision of the Act,
rendering the award arbitrary and unsustainable.
h) The impugned awards defeat the very object of the Act of 2013,
namely, to ensure fair, just and adequate compensation to the persons
whose lands are compulsorily acquired.
i) The impugned judgment is contrary to the evidence on record, the
provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013, and the settled
principles governing determination of compensation in compulsory
acquisition cases and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
j) The Reference Court has also computed the average market value of
the acquired land on the basis of exemplar sale deeds but there is no
legal basis for reducing it to Rs.11,000/- per decimal without giving
any reasoning and the same is against his own determination.
16
2026:JHHC:27828
k) The appellants are entitled to get compensation on the basis of the
market value established through the comparable sale deeds @ Rs.
1,51,731/- per decimal as computed above or @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per
decimals for which the appellants have paid the court fee, together
with all statutory benefits including solatium, additional compensation
and interest as provided under the Act of 2013.
l) The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the
judgement by this court in F.A. No. 52 of 2026 and analogous cases
vide judgment dated 30.03.2026 against which the Special Leave
Petition being SLP (C) No. 15181 of 2026 has been dismissed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.05.2026.
7. Arguments of the State
I. Total 58 Land Acquisition cases being L.A case nos. 614/2022 to
671/2022, have been referred by the D.L.A.O., Ramgarh, to the Learned
Principal District Judge cum L.A.R.R.A., Hazaribagh, under section 64
of the Act of 2013. The land of the appellants situated at village Gandke
within district Ramgarh have been acquired for the purpose of widening
and strengthening of Lalki Ghati to Marang Marcha (N.H. 23) Road
vide notification no. 407/L.A. Ramgarh dated 01.07.2019. The
declaration no. 109/L.A. dated 18.02.2020 has been made.
II. The entire acquisition proceeding was conducted strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of 2013 and Rules framed thereunder, all
statutory requirements including notification, declaration, survey,
valuation and determination of compensation were duly complied with.
The compensation was determined @ Rs.3740/- per decimals based on
prevailing circle rate, classification and nature of land, multiplier
factor and other statutory parameter. Award has been prepared under
section 23 and 30 of the Act of 2013.
III. Aggrieved with the award passed by the Collector, the
appellants/awardees sought reference under section 64 of the Act of
2013 before the learned court at Hazaribagh, who upon due
consideration of the evidences and materials on record, enhanced the
compensation to Rs.11,000/- per decimals. Thereafter, these First
Appeals arise out from the common judgment dated 24.02.2025 passed
by the learned court.
IV. Submissions of the State respondent are summarized as follows: -
1) The land admittedly was classified as Tanr category land.
2) The appellants have failed to produce any valid exemplar sale deeds
of similar piece of land, comparable transactions or other credible
documentary evidences to substantiate the claim for higher
compensation; as such the claim for enhancement of the
compensation from the compensation as determined by the court is
not maintainable. Thus, the judgment under challenge in these
appeals requires no interference.
3) Onus to prove higher compensation lies upon the
claimants/appellants, which they failed to prove.
17
2026:JHHC:27828
4) The exemplar sale deeds as exhibited on behalf of the appellants from
Ext. 1 to 1/6 are not of village Gandke, but the same are of village
Murramkala and Kankebar and they pertain to the residential nature
of land.
5) The land of exemplar sale deeds of village Murramkala cannot be
equated with the Tanr land of the appellants. Thus, the same cannot
be taken to be similar piece of land and also of similar character.
6) Separate land acquisition cases have been registered for the lands
acquired in village Gandke, but the claimants of each cases have not
been examined in the cases registered at their instances, as such
adverse inference can be drawn under section 114(g) of the Indian
Evidence Act, that the case set up by them is not correct. Moreover,
the evidence of P.W 1 cannot be taken into consideration.
7) Moreover, the P.W 1 has deposed in cross examination in paragraph
no. 26 that he has not produced any document of sale price of land
@ 1,50,000/- decimal. Further in cross examination he has deposed
that forest area under Lalki Valley situated in Vill- Gandke lies on
the right side of Ramgarh to Ranchi Road. Thus, it suggests that the
area is not developed and the claim of higher compensation is
without having any basis.
8) The P.W 2 has deposed in cross examination in paragraph no. 18 that
the village Gandke falls within Dokahatu Panchayat. He further
deposed in paragraph 20 that the land of village Gandke near Road
is Tanr . Moreover, in Para 34 he deposed that Lalki Ghati lies within
village Gandke. As such it can be inferred that no any agricultural
activity is being carried out.
9) Thus, from the depositions of the PW’s themselves the acquired land
of village Gandke cannot be equated with the land of the residential
nature of village Murramkala.
10) The averment made in paragraph 8 of the show cause petition filed
by the O.P No. 1 & 2 in L.A case No. 614/22 to 671/2022 reads as: -
That the statement made in the claim petition in
support of claim for compensation are denied and
disputed more over the petitioner had received the
compensation amount without any protest and
objection.
The reference also finds place at the bottom of the paragraph no. 4 of
the judgment under challenge.
11) Thus, the appeals lack merit and no interference is required.
Points for determination.
8. Though neither cross objection nor cross appeal has been filed
regarding enhancement of quantum of compensation but the learned
counsel for the respondents have raised an objection that the
appellants had received the compensation amount without any protest
and hence the reference itself was not maintainable.
18
2026:JHHC:27828
Further-
The core issue to be decided in this case is –
Whether the determination of compensation by the
learned court of the Principal District Judge -cum-
L.A.R.R.A., Hazaribag is in conformity with the
provisions of section 26 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ?
Findings of this Court
A. The impugned judgement
9. The findings of the learned court while enhancing the
compensation from flat rate of Rs.3740/- per decimal to flat rate of
Rs.11,000/- per decimal is as under: -
“ 10. Heard the argument of both the sides. In the light of
argument, perused the entire materials available on record from
which, it appears that, fifty eight Land Acquisition Case nos.
614/2022 to 671/2022, (total area 2.75 acre of village Gandke)
has been acquired by the Collector for the construction of
widening strengthening of Lalki Ghati to Marang Marcha and
compensation for the acquired has already been paid by the
Collector. To substantiate the case, the petitioners have
examined P.W. 1 Harakhnath Mahto. He is applicant in L.R.
Case no. 652/2022. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated
that, at the time of acquisition, the market value of the acquired
land was Rs.1,50,000/- per decimal and they had given
compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3740/- per
decimal which is much less than the prevailing market price of
that time, but in his cross-examination at para 26 he has stated
that, he has not produced any document regarding the price of
land at Rs. 1.5 lakh per decimal in the court. At para 28 he has
stated that, his land was classified as Tand category by the
government and compensation was paid to him even though his
land is of commercial category. P.W.2 is Yogendra Prasad
Ganjhu. He is also one of the applicant. In his examination in-
chief, he has also stated that, at the time of acquisition, the
market value of the acquired land was Rs.1,50,000/- per decimal
and they had given compensation for the acquired land at the
rate of Rs. 3740/- per decimal which is much less than the
prevailing market price of that time. In cross-examination at
para 23, he has stated that, the market value of their land should
be Rs 1,50,000/- per decimal but no land has been sold at this
rate in Gandke village and they have not filed any document
19
2026:JHHC:27828
related to sale of the land of Gandke village. He further stated
that, it is true that, they have received four times the
compensation that was determined. It also appears that seven
sale deeds have been proved on behalf of the petitioners which
are following : Ext.1 is Certified copy of sale deed no.831/804,
dated 30.04.2016 of village Kankebar , Ext.1/1 is Certified copy
of sale deed no.938/918, dated 14.07.2017 of village Kankebar,
Ext.1/2 is Certified copy of sale deed no.1979/1931, dated
26.11.2018 of village Murramkala, Ext.1/3 is Certified copy of
sale deed no.1378, dated 17.11.2017, Ext.1/4 is Certified copy of
sale deed no.2084, dated 31.12.2018, Ext.1/5 is Certified copy of
sale deed no.122, dated 28.01.2019, Ext.1/6 is Certified copy of
sale deed no.1562, dated 23.10.2019, It also appears that, three
documents have been proved on behalf of the opp. parties. Ext.
A is Attested copy of Notification no.407/LA, dt. 01.07.2019, Ext.
B is Attested copy of Declaration no.109/L.A. dt. 18.02.2020 and
Ext. C is Attested copy of map. In all the sale deeds filed on
behalf of the petitioners except land of sale deed (exhibit 1/2),
type of land is residential and are of village Kankebar and
Murramkala. The land of Ext.-1/2 is commercial type which is of
village Murramkala. It also appears from the evidence of the
witnesses of the petitioners that, the claimants have been paid
compensation at the rate of Rs.3740/- per decimal. It further
appears that, there is no sale transaction of village Gandke.
I find that, for determination of market value of land it is
essential to go through the provisions of sections 26 of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which reads thus:
Determination of market value of land by Collector :-
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing
and determining the market value of the land, namely :-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements
to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated,
or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the
nearest village or nearest vicinity area, or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under
sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for
private companies or for public private partnership projects.
I further find that, seven sale deeds have been exhibited in this
case by the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
Calculation of average rate as per provision of Section 26 (b),
Explanation 2 of the L.A.R.R. Act, 2013, submitted by the ld.
20
2026:JHHC:27828
counsel for the petitioner, one half of the total number of sale-
deeds in which the highest sale-price has been mentioned comes
to Rs.1,57,183.00 per decimal agricultural land, but from
perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record it is not
clear that how much distance between the acquired land of
village Gandke and land of sale deeds of village Murramkala and
Kankebar submitted by the petitioners. From the perusal of
valuation chart mentioned in Ext.-B submitted by the opp.
parties, it appears that there is no sale transaction from the year
2016 to 2019 of Mauza Gandke. It also appears that, the
prescribed rate approved by the District Sub-Registrar,
Ramgarh vide letter no. 598/Ni, dated 17.08.2019 for the
financial years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in village Gandke
under Jharkhand Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) (Amendment) Rules 2018, as per the minimum price
guideline register applicable from 01.11.2018 of the registry
office before the date of notification 01.07.2019, the value of the
agricultural land is Rs. 3740/- per decimal and the same has
been paid to the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here that,
no any sale deed has been produced by the claimants/petitioners
with regard to the sale deed executed for Mauza Gandke, rather
he has filed a sale deed of Mauza Murramkala and Kankebar
which does not show the nearest Mauza of the acquired land. The
acquired land covered by CNT area. The state has well assessed
the value of the land which already acquired in accordance with
Sec. 26 (b) LARR Act 2013. The prayer of petitioners to assess
the value of the land Rs.1,57,183.00 per decimal is not to be
considered as it is to much high in compare to the government
assessment. However, for the interest of justice, I come to the
conclusion based on the facts remains in the present case, as well
as, the settled law with regard to the guiding factors towards
assessment of the valuation, Rs.11,000/- (eleven thousand) per
decimal is assessed for giving compensation to the entire land
situated in Mauza Gandke which has been acquired for Widening
Strengthening of Lalki Ghati to Marang Marcha (N.H. 23) Road,
related to the present case. Hence, all the petitioners are entitled
to get compensation @ Rs.11,000/- per decimal and they are also
entitled to get all statutory benefit provided under the provision
of L.A.R.R. Act, 2013.
The payment of compensation with all benefits shall be made
within three months from the date of the award.
Hence, the present L.R. Cases are disposed with partially
allowing the compensation for acquired land of the petitioners.
Office is directed to prepare the Award accordingly.
21
2026:JHHC:27828
Let a copy of this Award be sent to the Land Acquisition Officer,
Ramgarh, for necessary information, action and immediate
compliance for remittance of amounts.”
10. The impugned judgment reveals that the learned court refused to
take into consideration the sale-deeds exhibited by the appellants
primarily on the ground that they were not the sale-deeds of Mouza
Gandke, rather they were sale-deeds of mouza Murramkala and
Kankebar which does not show nearest Mouza of the acquired land and
that it was not clear as to how much distance is there between the
acquired land of village Gandke and sale-deeds of villages Murramkala
and Kankebar. The Court also refused to consider the calculation of the
compensation as relied upon by the appellants by referring to section
26(b) of the Act of 2013 on the ground that the rate of compensation as
claimed was Rs. 1,57,183/- per decimal which was much higher as
compared to the government assessment. However, the compensation
amount was enhanced to Rs. 11,000/- per decimal referring to interest
of justice with further observation that the appellants would be also
entitled to get all statutory benefits provided under the provisions of the
Act of 2013. This court is of the considered view that the impugned
judgement passed by the learned court is perverse on account of
incomplete appreciation of materials on record and non-
consideration of the sale value of the land covered by the sale deeds
exhibited by the appellants for the purposes of coming to the market
value of the acquired lands which were of near village when
admittedly, no sale deed of the same mouza (village) was available for
consideration, either by the learned court or by the district land
acquisition officer who fixed the compensation at the circle rate
relating to agricultural land. Even the evidences placed on record
have not been properly appreciated. The impugned judgement is also
contrary to manner of computation of compensation under the
provisions of section 26 of the aforesaid Act of 2013.
B. Consideration of materials on record.
11. The acquisition of land in the present case is admittedly governed
by the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2013 and the compensation
22
2026:JHHC:27828
has to be determined under the aforesaid Act of 2013 in terms of section
26 of the Act. The sections relevant for the present case are sections
11, 26 and 27 of the Act of 2013.
12. The foundational facts are that the lands were acquired for
Widening and Strengthening of Lalki Ghati to Marang Marcha (N.H.
23) Road and the notification under section 11 of the aforesaid Act of
2013 was issued on 01.07.2019. The District Land Acquisition Officer
fixed the compensation at flat Rs.3,740/- per decimal, which was the
circle rate of agricultural land relating to the acquired lands involved in
these cases and by the impugned judgment, the compensation has been
enhanced at flat rate to Rs. 11,000/- per decimal.
The lands involved in the present cases are situated in Mouza- Gandke,
Thana No. 99, Revenue Thana Ramgarh, Anchal Ramgarh in the district
of Ramgarh.
13. PW-1 (Harakhnath Mahto) filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh has acquired
the raiyati lands of the applicants for widening and strengthening of the
road from Lalki Ghati to Marangmarcha N.H.-23. His land bearing Plot
No.1182, Khata No.45, area 12 decimals alongwith other raiyats of
Village- Gandke, P.S.- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh has been acquired
for the project. They have been paid compensation @ Rs.3,740/- per
decimal against the acquired lands, which is very less than the
prevailing market price at that time and therefore, all the raiyats are
dissatisfied and they have filed the case for enhancement of the
compensation amount. The market value of their land at the time of
acquisition was Rs.1,50,000/- per decimal approximately and therefore,
they demand compensation @ Rs.150,000/- per decimal against their
acquired lands. They have opposed the determination of compensation
against their lands on the basis of categorization and they demand
fixation of the compensation at a uniform rate for all the acquired lands,
as all the lands in their village are of the same kind. All the villages i.e.
Gandke, Kankebar, Budhakhukhra, Murramkala are situated
adjacent to Ramgarh Town and all the villages come within Ramgarh
block. He further stated that at the time of acquisition of their lands,
23
2026:JHHC:27828
Plot No.1005, Khata No.150, area 14 decimals of Ramgarh has been
acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No.3/2018-19 and compensation
of Rs.80,69,712/- has been paid @ Rs.5,76,408/- per decimal. He
further stated that their village is mainly inhabited by tribal and
backward communities who come under CNT category and conditions
have been prescribed for sale of the lands and therefore, there is no
document for sale and purchase of lands. He further stated that Mouza-
Kankebar and Mouza- Gandke are adjacent to each other and both
the villages have the same kind of lands and the 4-Lane N.H.-33 Road
for going to Ranchi has passed through both the villages and their
village is situated in the south eastern border of Ramgarh Town. After
formation of Ramgarh District in the year 2012, their village has
developed very rapidly and Ramgarh Town is expanding towards their
village. Radha Govind University has been established in their village
as an extension of Ramgarh Town and DPS School, Ramgarh has also
been established in their village. Radha Govind Law University,
Nursing College, etc. have also been established. All the amenities of a
town like road, electricity, water, hospital, high school, college, water
supply, power plant etc. are available in their village. N.H.-33 4-Lane
Road from Ramgarh to Ranchi has passed through their village. The
headquarters of Ramgarh district is situated at a distance of 2 kilometers
only from their village, Ramgarh Sub-Division Complex is situated at
a distance of 2 kilometers and bus stand, market, etc. are situated at a
distance of 2 to 3 kilometers. He claimed that the potential for
development of his acquired land is very high. During cross-
examination , he admitted at Para-19 that the land of Gandke village
acquired for road widening is his Khatiani land and the lands of other
raiyats are also Khatiani land. He admitted at Para-21 that he does not
have any knowledge about the government rate of sale and purchase of
the lands of village Gandke in the year when the lands were acquired.
He also admitted that most of the lands in his village comes under CNT,
as his village is tribal dominated. He admitted at Para-25 that the
purchase and sale of the lands of CNT Castes is done after the
permission of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district and
24
2026:JHHC:27828
therefore, purchase and sale of land is not taking place in his village. He
also admitted at Para-26 that he has not produced any document in court
regarding the rate of Rs.1.5 Lakh per decimal of land. He admitted at
Para-27 & 28 that at the time of acquisition of the lands, the lands were
classified into three kinds i.e. residential, commercial and tand and his
land was classified as tand category by the government and
compensation has been paid to him, whereas his land is of commercial
category. At the time of acquisition, he had two shops built on his 12
decimals of land, but he has not received separate compensation for the
structure. He admitted at Para-30 that he has not filed any document
related to the shop in the Land Acquisition Department or in court. He
had rented out the shops, one shop was a motorcycle garage and the
other shop was a general store. The tenants of both shops had not filed
any compensation applications before the Land Acquisition
Department. He further admitted at Para-32 that while going from
Ramgarh to Ranchi, the forest area of Lalki valley of Village-Gandke
lies on the right side of the road. They travel by private vehicles from
Gandke to Ramgarh and tempos, buses and taxis operate from there.
They come from Ramgarh in 4-5 minutes in four-wheeler and the
distance from Gandke to Ramgarh is 2 to 3 kilometers approximately.
He further admitted at Para-34 that vide Land Acquisition Case
No.3/2018-19, the lands have been acquired in Ramgarh and not in
Gandke village. Kankebar village falls within the boundaries and is
adjacent to Gandke village. He denied the suggestion that the acquired
land is a remote village in Ramgarh district, where very few people live
and the compensation paid by the government is appropriate. He also
denied the suggestion that there was no shop situated on his land and
only tand has been acquired and there was no structure on his land. He
also denied the suggestion that the enhancement of compensation
claimed by him is not correct.
14. PW-2 (Yogendra Prasad Ganjhu) filed his examination-in-chief
on affidavit stating that his raiyati land bearing Plot No.383, Khata No.
39, area 0.08 acres alongwith lands of other raiyats of Village- Gandke,
P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh has been acquired by the Deputy
25
2026:JHHC:27828
Commissioner, Ramgarh for widening and strengthening of N.H.-23
Road already constructed from Lalki Ghati to Marangmarcha. He
further stated that the market value of their lands at the time of
acquisition was Rs.1,50,000/- per decimal approximately and therefore,
they demand compensation against their acquired land @ Rs.1,50,000/-
per decimal. They have been paid compensation @ Rs.3,740/- per
decimal against the acquired lands, which is very less than the
prevailing market price at that time and therefore, all the raiyats are
dissatisfied and they have filed the case for enhancement of the
compensation amount. He further stated that their village is mainly
inhabited by tribal and backward communities who come under CNT
category and conditions have been prescribed for sale of the lands and
therefore, there is no document for purchase and sale of lands, which
has been confirmed by the registration office of the government relating
to sale and purchase. He further stated that at the time of acquisition of
their lands, Plot No.1005, Khata No.150, area 14 decimals of Ramgarh
has been acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No.3/2018-19 and
compensation of Rs.80,69,712/- has been paid @ Rs.5,76,408/- per
decimal. All the villages i.e. Gandke, Kankebar, Budhakhukhra and
Murramkala are situated adjacent to Ramgarh Town and all the villages
come within Ramgarh block. Mouza- Kankebar and Mouza- Gandke
are adjacent villages and both the villages have the same kind of lands.
The N.H.-33 4-Lane Road from Ramgarh to Ranchi has passed through
both the villages. The boundary of Kankebar is recorded in the map of
Mouza Gandke and the boundary of Gandke is recorded in the map of
Mouza Kankebar and their village is situated adjacent to the southern
eastern border of Ramgarh Town. After formation of Ramgarh district
in the year 2012, their village has developed very rapidly and Ramgarh
Town is expanding towards their village. Radha Govind University has
been established in his Village- Gandke as an extension of Ramgarh
Town. The DPS school has also been established in their village. Radha
Govind Law University, Nursing College, etc. have been established in
his village itself. All the amenities of a town like road, electricity, water,
hospital, high school, college, water supply, power plant etc. are
26
2026:JHHC:27828
available in their village. N.H.-33 4-Lane Road from Ramgarh to
Ranchi has passed through their village. The headquarters of Ramgarh
district is situated at a distance of 2 kilometers only from their village,
Ramgarh Sub-Division Complex is situated at a distance of 2 kilometers
and bus stand, market, etc. are situated at a distance of 2 to 3 kilometers
and thus, their village is within the limits of Ramgarh Town. The
potential for development of his acquired land is very high. During
cross-examination , he admitted at Para-17 & 18 that total 8 decimals
of his land has been acquired and in addition, the lands of 57 raiyats
have been acquired and all the raiyats have filed case for enhancement
of the compensation amount and Gandke village comes within
Dohakatu panchayat. He further admitted at Para-19 that his acquired
land is ancestral land and it is a commercial land. All the lands on the
side of the road are commercial lands. There are many fields, tand, etc.
on the side of the road of Gandke village. His acquired land has some
houses on it, but the land only has been acquired. He admitted at Para-
22 & 23 that after acquisition of the lands, the government has paid the
compensation, but the market value of their lands should be
Rs.1,50,000/- per decimal, although no land has been sold at this rate in
Gandke village. He admitted at Para-24 that they have not filed the
documents related to the lands of Gandke village. He does not know the
government rate of sale and purchase of the land in Gandke village sold
in the year 2018-19. Road was already existing at the place where their
lands have been acquired for widening of the road. Their village passes
through Lalki Ghati and Lalki ghati is surrounded by forests. There are
some bushes in the village, but there is no forest in the village. No tree
was cut in Lalki Ghati forest during the road construction and the forest
in his village was also not cut. He further admitted at Para-30 that they
have received four times compensation than the determined amount.
The lands were also acquired in villages like R.C.D. Road, Kankebar,
Burhakhukhra, Murramkala, etc., but he cannot say whose land was
acquired in the said villages. There is a road from Dulmi to their village.
He also admitted that when they travel from Ramgarh on N.H.-33, their
village is on the left and when they turn left, they find Lalki Ghati
27
2026:JHHC:27828
wherein government road has been constructed, but the said road has
no connection with N.H.-33. Lalki Ghati comes under Gandke Mouza.
They travel to Ramgarh market by tempo, bus or taxi and it takes about
5 minutes. Their Gandke village is a village of about 400 houses. DPS
School has been established in their village, but it is closed at present.
Radha Govind University is a private university owned by B.N. Shah.
Their source of income is farming and they grow vegetables and they
irrigate from their wells. Gandke village is a tribal and backward caste
village, but it is not very far from the road. He denied the suggestion
that there was no road constructed in the village earlier. He also denied
the suggestion that they were given proper compensation by the
government and their claim in not correct.
15. The applicants / awardees / appellants exhibited the following
documents:
Exhibits Sale Deed No. Date of
Sale Deed
Name of
Total
Sale
Amount in
Rate
Village
land
Per
Decimal
(Rs.)
in (Rs.)
Ext-1
Sale Deed
30.04.2016 Kankebar 4½
10,00,000 2,22,222
No.831/804
decimals
Ext-1/1 Sale Deed
14.07.2017 Kankebar 6¼
6,20,625 99,300
No.938/918
decimals
Ext-1/2 Sale Deed
26.11.2018 Murramkala 13¾ 31,63,000 2,30,036
No.1979/1931
Ext-1/3 Sale Deed
17.11.2017 Murramkala 24
51,00,000 2,12,500
No.1378
decimals
Ext-1/4 Sale Deed
31.12.2018 Murramkala 13
30,00,000 2,30,769
No.2084
decimals
Ext-1/5
Sale Deed
23.10.2019 Kankebar 14
38,00,000 2,71,429
No.1599/1562
decimals
Ext-1/6 Sale Deed
28.01.2019 Murramkala 7½
29,70,000 3,96,000
No.122
decimals
Mark-X Village Map Village
Kankebar
Mark-
Village Map Village
X/1
Gandke
28
2026:JHHC:27828
16. The opposite parties/respondents examined only one witness
namely, Deepak Kumar as DW-1. He filed his examination-in-chief on
affidavit stating that he is presently posted as a Junior Engineer in the
Road Construction Department, Ramgarh office and he has been
authorized to testify in the case. He further stated that the land-in-
question has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Department,
Ramgarh for widening and strengthening of Lalki Ghati to
Marangmarcha Road. The disputed land has been acquired for widening
and strengthening the already constructed road in village Gandke, in
which the work of labelling and soil filling has been done. There is no
basic facility in village Gandke. He further stated that the compensation
amount determined by the Collector is based on the prevailing market
rate and is legally appropriate and correct. The compensation was
awarded on the basis of the nature of the land. The acquired land is not
a developed area and the government will have to spend a lot to widen
the road. The land has been acquired for public purpose, the benefits of
which are also being availed by the raiyats after the construction of the
road. The claim of the applicants for enhancement of compensation is
baseless. He denied the suggestion that Village Gandke is a developed
village. During cross-examination , he admitted that he has been orally
deputed by his office to testify in court. He admitted at Para-13 that he
does not know either of the parties. He further admitted that he has come
to court to testify in a case related to village Gandke. He is a junior
engineer and he was posted in Chatra in 2018-19. He has visited village
Gandke. The Lalki Valley is located in Gandke Mouza, which is
adjacent to Ramgarh, but 8 kms away. He further admitted at Para-16
that the villages Gandke and Kankebar are adjacent villages. He also
admitted at Para-17 that he is not aware of the amount of compensation
given to the raiyats by the government. He further stated at Para-18 &
19 that the road from Lalki Ghati to Marangarcha is a black paved rural
road and N.H.-33 Road has passed through Lalki Valley. Radha Govind
College is located in Gandke village and there is high school and
electricity also. He admitted at Para-21 that to the best of his
knowledge, the minimum rate of sale and purchase of land in the area
29
2026:JHHC:27828
around Ramgarh would be around one lakh to two lakh rupees per
decimal. He admitted at Para-22 that he does not know much about the
case.
17. The opposite parties / respondents exhibited the following
documents:
Exhibit-A Attested copy of Notification No.407/LA dated
01.07.2019 issued Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013
Exhibit-B Attested copy of Declaration No.109/LA dated
18.02.2020 issued under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013
Exhibit-C Attested copy of map
18. So far as the objection in connection with maintainability of
the reference cases before the learned court is concerned, the learned
counsel for the State through the written notes of arguments, has pressed
a point that the claimants had received the compensation amount
without any protest and objection and he has stated that this submission
of the State has been recorded in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment
also but not considered.
19. This Court finds that the reference in each of the cases was made
by the District Land Acquisition Officer vide order(s) dated 11.04.2022
which are available on record. There were several reference cases of
similar nature and the orders of reference reveal that the claimant
refused to accept the awarded amount and hence reference was being
made. The portion of the order of one such reference relevant for the
point is embossed as under:
20. This Court finds that the claimants were served with notice under
section 37(2) of the Act of 2013 wherein they were asked to accept the
compensation amount and immediately upon notice, they filed their
30
2026:JHHC:27828
objection annexing the copy of the notice. The aforesaid facts very well
demonstrate that the claimants have filed their objection immediately
upon receipt of notice asking them to accept the awarded amount and
claimed compensation at enhanced rate which led the concerned
District Land Acquisition Officer to make reference to the Court under
section 64 of the Act of 2013 by recording that the claimants have not
accepted the awarded amount.
21. Thus, the objection of the learned counsel for the State that the
claimants had accepted the compensation amount without any protest
is hereby rejected.
22. So far as the arguments of the respondents that each and every
claimant has not come forward to give evidence is concerned, the
same is also of no consequence. The P.W. 1 and 2 have stated that they
were deposing on behalf of all the claimants and all the cases were
tagged together and one evidence was treated to be the evidence for all
the cases. Even the State has not given separate evidence in separate
cases. Further, the lands of the same village were acquired
simultaneously by one notification and all the lands were adjoining the
existing national highway and same rate of compensation was awarded
with respect to all the lands by the land acquisition officer also. The
P.W-1 and P.W-2 were the persons whose lands were also acquired by
the same notification and they were thoroughly cross examined.
23. The P.W-1 has clearly stated that his raiyati lands along with the
land of other applicants were acquired for widening and strengthening
of the National Highway no. 23 all in Village- Gandke, P.S.- Ramgarh,
District Ramgarh and have been paid compensation @ Rs.3,740/- per
decimal which is very less than the prevailing market price at that time.
The market value of their land at the time of acquisition was
Rs.1,50,000/- per decimal. He has stated that all the villages i.e.
Gandke, Kankebar, Budhakhukhra, Murramkala are situated
adjacent to Ramgarh Town and all the villages come within Ramgarh
block. He has stated that their village is mainly inhabited by tribal and
backward communities who come under CNT category and conditions
have been prescribed for sale of the lands and therefore, there is no
31
2026:JHHC:27828
document for sale and purchase of lands. He has also stated that their
village is situated in the south eastern border of Ramgarh Town and
after formation of Ramgarh District in the year 2012, their village has
developed very rapidly and Ramgarh Town is expanding towards their
village. Radha Govind University has been established in their village
as an extension of Ramgarh Town and DPS School, Ramgarh has also
been established in their village. Radha Govind Law University,
Nursing College, etc. have also been established. All the amenities of a
town like road, electricity, water, hospital, high school, college, water
supply, power plant etc. are available in their village. N.H.-33, 4-Lane
Road from Ramgarh to Ranchi has passed through their village. The
headquarters of Ramgarh district is situated at a distance of 2 kilometers
only from their village, Ramgarh Sub-Division Complex is situated at
a distance of 2 kilometers and bus stand, market, etc. are situated at a
distance of 2 to 3 kilometers. He claimed that the potential for
development of his acquired land is very high. During cross-
examination , he stated that he has not produced any document in court
regarding the rate of Rs.1.5 Lakh per decimal of land. They travel by
private vehicles from Gandke to Ramgarh and tempos, buses and taxis
operate from there. They come from Ramgarh in 4-5 minutes in four-
wheeler and the distance from Gandke to Ramgarh is 2 to 3 kilometers
approximately. He also stated during cross examination that
Kankebar village falls within the boundaries and is adjacent to
Gandke village. He denied the suggestion that the acquired land is a
remote village in Ramgarh district, where very few people live and the
compensation paid by the government is appropriate. P.W-2, whose
land has also been acquired by the same acquisition process also
deposed and was cross examined on the same lines. The evidence of
P.W-2 is consistent with the evidence of the P.W-1. So far as the
opposite party is concerned, the sole witness examined as D.W-1
admitted at Para-16 that the villages Gandke and Kankebar are adjacent
villages. He also stated that to the best of his knowledge, the minimum
rate of sale and purchase of land in the area around Ramgarh would be
around one lakh to two lakh rupees per decimal.
32
2026:JHHC:27828
24. The records also reveal that the maps of village Gandke and
village Kankebar were produced by the appellants which were marked
X/1 and X respectively for identification. The respondents also
produced one map but the same does not reveal the boundary of the
village Gandke and the respondents have not even referred to the map
(exhibit-C) for any purpose during the course of hearing as it is an
admitted fact that the acquired properties are adjacent to the National
Highway No. 23 as the lands were admittedly acquired for widening of
the existing national highway.
25. The oral evidence of the appellants and the respondents reveal
that it remained an undisputed fact that the villages Gandke and
Kankebar are adjacent villages. However, with respect to village
Budhakhukhra and Murramkala vis-à-vis village Gandke it has only
been stated by the witnesses of the appellants that all the villages i.e.,
Gandke, Kankebar, Budhakhukhra and Murramkala are situated
adjacent to Ramgarh Town and all the villages come within Ramgarh
block . It has not been stated that village Gandke has common boundary
either with Budhakhukhra or with Murramkala. Even in cross
examination, no such statement has been made.
Thus, on the basis of oral evidences placed on record, the appellants
have not proved that village Gandke is adjacent or has common
boundary with village Murramkala and what has been proved is that
village Gandke has common boundary with village Kankebar. The
maps produced by the appellants, though marked X and X/1 for
identification also are not clear to come to a conclusion that village
Murramkala is adjoining to village Gandke or share common boundary.
However, the map of village Gandke reveals that Kankebar and Gandke
have long common boundary. This is over and above the fact that the
respondents have argued that the maps produced by the appellants were
not proved and no reliance can be placed on such maps marked X and
X/1. However, irrespective of the maps the appellants have proved that
Kankebar and Gandke have common boundary and are nearest villages
to each other. The arguments of the appellants that village Gandke is
having common boundary with village Murramkala is rejected but the
33
2026:JHHC:27828
arguments of the appellants that village Gandke has common boundary
with Kankebar is accepted. These aspects of the matter have not been
considered by the learned court and the learned court has erroneously
come to its conclusion that the evidences do not show that Kankebar
was the nearest Mouza of the acquired land.
26. The appellants have exhibited sale deeds of both Kankebar and
Murramkala. However, in view of the aforesaid findings and in view of
section 26 of the Act of 2013, the sale deeds of village Murramkala
cannot be taken into consideration to arrive at the market value of the
acquired land. This would be clear from the following discussions.
27. In connection with the mode and manner of computation of
market value of the acquired lands, it would be relevant to refer to
section 26 of the aforesaid Act of 2013 wherein three modes for
determination of compensation have been provided which are –
a) Circle rate; or
b) the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity
area; or
c) consented amount of compensation as agreed
upon.
whichever is higher.
For the purpose of determination of compensation in terms of
Section 26 of the aforesaid Act of 2013, three modes, as explained
above, under Section 26(1)(a), 26 (1)(b) and 26(1)(c) have been
prescribed and whichever is of higher value amongst them, is to be
taken into consideration .
As per explanation 1 to section 26 of the Act of 2013, the average
sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into
account the sale deeds or the agreement of sale registered for
similar type of area in the nearby village or near vicinity area
during immediately preceding three years.
As per explanation 2 , for determining the average sale price
referred to in explanation 1, half of the total number of sale deeds
34
2026:JHHC:27828
or the agreements of sale, in which highest sale price has been
mentioned, shall be taken into account.
28. It is important to note that having found that there was no sale
deed of the concerned village for fixing the rate of compensation of the
acquired land, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh has not
made any endeavour to find out the market rate of land with respect to
nearest adjoining village in spite of having recorded that no sale-deed
of land in village Gandke were available from the registry office for the
period from 2016 to 2019. In view of the provisions of section 26(1) (b)
of the Act of 2013, the collector is under a legal obligation to find out
the market rate of the land of similar type relating to the nearest village,
particularly when no sale deed is available with respect to the village
concerned and then compare it with the circle rate, that is, the market
value of the area as specified under the Indian Stamp Act for
registration of sale deeds/ agreements and grant compensation on the
amount whichever is higher amongst the exercise undertaken under
section 26(1)(a) and 26(1) (b) . This court is not concerned with the
section 26(1) (c) which deals with the agreed compensation under
certain circumstances. This court is of the considered view that there is
a need to exercise the process under section 26(1) (a) and also 26(1) (b)
to arrive at fair compensation based on market value of the acquired
property. This exercise having not been done by the Land Acquisition
officer, the claimants had no option but to raise objection to the offered
amount of compensation and seek reference and produce the sale deeds
available with them with respect to other villages, including adjoining
village, as admittedly, no sale deed was available with respect to the
village concerned.
C. Computation of rate of compensation of the acquired land
29. Apart from the aforesaid, it is also required to be seen as to which
of the sale deeds, amongst the sale deeds exhibited by the appellants,
fall within the relevant period i.e. 3 years prior to the notification dated
01.07.2019 issued under section 11 of the aforesaid Act of 2013 i.e., the
period between 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019 to be eligible for
consideration for the purpose of taking average rate of ½ of such
35
2026:JHHC:27828
eligible sale deeds. The competent authority had fixed compensation at
flat rate for the acquired land falling in village Gandke taking all the
lands as agricultural land. The learned court has enhanced the
compensation at flat rate irrespective of classification of land. The
grievance of the appellants is that enhancement at flat rate by the
learned court ought to have been much higher and for that, sale deeds
of Kankebar and Murramkala have been produced and admittedly,
neither the District Land Acquisition Officer nor the appellants nor the
respondents could cite any sale deed from the village Gandke.
30. The 7 sale deeds exhibited by the appellants reveal that they are
either from village Kankebar or from village Murramkala and some of
them are falling within the period of 3 years prior to the date of
notification issued under section 11 of the aforesaid Act of 2013.
The national highway is crossing the village Gandke and as held above,
the appellants proved that village Kankebar is the adjoining village of
village Gandke and is apparently the nearest village to the acquired land
considering the materials placed on record and consequently only the
sale deeds relating to village Kankebar are to be considered when seen
in the light of section 26 of the Act of 2013 and the sale deeds relating
to village Murramkala cannot be taken into consideration for computing
the market rate of the acquired lands. Further, the sale deeds pertaining
to the period of 3 years i.e., from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019, that is, the
period of 3 years prior to date of notification under section 11(1) are to
be taken into consideration.
31. In view of the materials placed on record, the market value to
find the compensation of the acquired land is computed in the following
manner:
Exhi
Sale Deed No. Date of
Sale Deed
Name of
Total
Sale
Amount
Rate
bits
Village
land
Per
Decimal
in (Rs.)
in (Rs.)
Ext-
Sale Deed
30.04.2016 Kankebar 4½
10,00,000 2,22,222
1
No.831/804
deci
mals
36
2026:JHHC:27828
Ext-
Sale Deed
14.07.2017 Kankebar 6¼
6,20,625 99,300
1/1
No.938/918
deci
mals
Ext-
Sale Deed
26.11.2018 Murramkala 13¾ 31,63,000 2,30,036
1/2
No.1979/1931
Ext-
Sale Deed
17.11.2017 Murramkala 24
51,00,000 2,12,500
1/3
No.1378
deci
mals
Ext-
Sale Deed
31.12.2018 Murramkala 13
30,00,000 2,30,769
1/4
No.2084
deci
mals
Ext-
Sale Deed
23.10.2019 Kankebar 14
38,00,000 2,71,429
1/5
No.1599/1562
deci
mals
Ext-
Sale Deed
28.01.2019 Murramkala 7½
29,70,000 3,96,000
1/6
No.122
deci
mals
32. Out of the aforesaid sale-deeds, only Exhibit-1/1 falls within the
zone of consideration as other sale deeds are either beyond the period
of 3 years prior to issuance of notification under section 11 (1) of the
Act of 2013 , that is beyond , 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019 or of the village
Murramkala, which as held above, could not be proved by the
appellants to be the nearest/adjoining village to the village Gandke
whose properties were acquired. Admittedly, there is no sale deed of
village Gandke.
33. The average sale-price per decimal for the acquired lands by
considering exhibit- 1/1 would come to Rs. 99,300/- as exhibit- 1/1 is
the only sale deed fit for consideration.
34. Now the nature and location of the land is also required to be
compared. As per exhibit-1/1 the land sold is 6 and ¼ decimals and the
same is a vacant land and shown as residential and it does not reveal
that there is any road on the boundary. The exhibit- B reveals that the
acquired lands are also of a few decimals only for each claimant and the
land of each claimant was having road mostly on three sides and a few
37
2026:JHHC:27828
have road on two sides. Definitely one adjoining side of the acquired
lands is national highway as the lands have been acquired for widening
of national highway. The lands acquired in the present cases have huge
locational advantage which is not available with the land of exhibit- 1/1.
Further, there is consistent evidence of move towards urbanization and
on a tempo or other vehicle the time taken to reach Ramgarh Town is
four to five minutes as stated by the two witnesses of the appellants.
35. It is also important to note that the learned court has enhanced
the compensation at flat rate of Rs. 11,000/- per decimal and found the
compensation fixed by the District Land Acquisition Officer at circle
rate of agricultural land not acceptable, but no deliberations have been
made with respect to the exhibited sale deeds. It is important to note
that the respondents have neither filed any cross appeal nor filed any
cross objection to the appeals filed by the appellants and thus, are not
aggrieved by compensation fixed at flat rate of Rs.11,000/- per decimal
and this is irrespective of the nature of the acquired lands.
36. Considering the totality of circumstances as discussed above and
upon due consideration of the materials on record, this court, while
answering the core point of determination, holds that the judgment and
award passed by the learned court of the Principal District Judge -cum-
L.A.R.R.A., Hazaribag is not in conformity with the provisions of
section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the learned
Court has omitted to properly consider the materials on record while
enhancing the compensation to flat rate of Rs. 11,000/- only per decimal
from Rs. 3740/- per decimal by citing interest of justice although the
records reveal that cogent materials were produced seeking
enhancement of compensation to much more.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the compensation is
enhanced to flat rate of Rs. 99,300/- per decimal.
38. The appeals filed by the claimants are allowed by enhancing the
rate of compensation with respect to the acquired lands from flat rate of
Rs. 11,000/- per decimal to flat rate of Rs. 99,300/- per decimal . The
claimants would be entitled to all statutory benefits provided under the
38
2026:JHHC:27828
provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2013 as granted in the impugned
judgment and awards at the enhanced rate of compensation with respect
to the acquired lands in connection with which there is no dispute.
39. Office to prepare decree.
40. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
41. Let this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court
through “Fax/E-mail”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of Judgment:15.09.2026
Pankaj/Pankaj
Date of Uploading: 16.09.2026
39