Kundan Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6676 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
RESERVED
 

 

 
First Appeal No. 196 of 2011
 

 
Kundan Singh & others   	vs.	State of U.P. & other 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (218) of 2004
 
Suchet Singh & others	 vs.	State of U.P. 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (150) of 2004
 

 
Mukhtar Singh & others	    vs.	State of U.P. 
 

 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1149) of 2003
 

 
Harkaran	vs.	State of U.P. 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1233) of 2003
 

 
Raja Ram 	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1222) of 2003
 

 
Jai Kishan	 vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (198) of 2004
 

 
Bhooley & others	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (153) of 2004
 
Babu Singh	& others    vs.    State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
with 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1227 ) of   2003
 

 
Sahi Ram	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. 321  of  2013
 

 
Mangey Ram	 & others	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1155 ) of 2003
 

 
Lacchey	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. ( 148) of 2004
 

 
Mahendra	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (136 ) of 2004
 

 
Bharat Singh	& others	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1231 ) of 2003
 

 
Meer Singh & others   vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (152 ) of  2004
 

 
Megh Singh & others	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. ( 155 ) of 2004
 

 
Dharamveer	& others	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (230 ) of 2004
 

 
Shushil Kumar & others    	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. 812  of 2012
 

 
Rajesh Kumar & others    	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (133 ) of 2004
 

 
Hari Datt	   vs.	 State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. ( 225) of 2004
 

 
Sumant	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (229 ) of 2004
 

 
Jugraj	Singh  	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. 808 of 2012
 

 
Charan Singh & another	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1153 ) of 2003
 

 
Jagmal	vs. 	State of U.P. & another
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No. (1221 ) of 2003
 

 
Prem Singh & others	vs.	State of U.P. & another 	
 

 
With 
 

 

 
First Appeal No.     231      of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Kundan Singh & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     228      of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Satya Pal & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.      222    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA   vs.	Suchet Singh & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     230    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.		Sulli	& others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    221     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Mukhtar Singh & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    211   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Harkaran & another	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   227    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Raja Ram & another	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    226      of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Munshi & others	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     215     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Bhuley Singh & another
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     198   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Bhuley & others 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     219     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA   vs.	Mangey Ram & others 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   214       of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Lachhey & another
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     192     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Bhuley & another	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.      210    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Mahendra & another  
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     201     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA     vs.	     Bharat Singh & others	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   194       of  2004
 

 
NOIDA 	 vs.	Ram Singh & others 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   224       of  2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Meer Singh & others	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.  202    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Megh Singh & others	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     193     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Maida & others 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.       197   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.		Balwant 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   223       of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	 Brahma Singh & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     208     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Tika Ram & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     204     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Nimant Singh & another 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     220     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Parmal & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     218     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Indraj & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    199      of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Smt. Kusum & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   195   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Kamal Kishore & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.  229   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Raghuveer & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   205     of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Suraj Mal & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   203    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Hari Dutt & another
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   200    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA    vs.  Sumant Singh & others 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   158    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA     vs.	    Zilay Singh & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   212   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Jugraj Singh & another 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    206    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Khajan & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.  213   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Kaley 	& others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    207  of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Jeet Singh & others 
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    209      of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Charan Singh & others 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.      196    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Jag Maal & another
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.     216   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Babu Singh & others
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.    217   of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Bhuley Singh & others 	
 

 
With 
 

 
First Appeal No.   225    of 2004
 

 
NOIDA 	vs.	Sahi Ram & another 
 

 

 
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.

All the appeals are based on same set of facts raising a common questions of law and are directed against the same order deciding the references, hence, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

First Appeal No. 196 of 2011, First Appeal No. (218) of 2004, First Appeal No. (150) of 2004, First Appeal No. (1149) of 2003, First Appeal No. (1233) of 2003, First Appeal No. (1222) of 2003, First Appeal No. (198) of 2004, First Appeal No. (153) of 2004, First Appeal No. (1227 ) of 2003, First Appeal No. 321 of 2013, First Appeal No. (1155 ) of 2003, First Appeal No. ( 148) of 2004, First Appeal No. (136 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. (1231 ) of 2003, First Appeal No. (152 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. ( 155 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. (230 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. 812 of 2012, First Appeal No. (133 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. ( 225) of 2004, First Appeal No. (229 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. 808 of 2012, First Appeal No. (1153 ) of 2003 and First Appeal No. (1221 ) of 2003 have been filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation determined by District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide judgment and award dated 07.10.2003 passed on Land Acquisition References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act').

First Appeal No. 231 of 2004, First Appeal No. 228 of 2004, First Appeal No. 222 of 2004, First Appeal No. 230 of 2004, First Appeal No. 221 of 2004, First Appeal No. 211 of 2004, First Appeal No. 227 of 2004, First Appeal No. 226 of 2004, First Appeal No. 215 of 2004, First Appeal No. 198 of 2004, First Appeal No. 219 of 2004, First Appeal No. 214 of 2004, First Appeal No. 192 of 2004, First Appeal No. 210 of 2004, First Appeal No. 201 of 2004, First Appeal No. 194 of 2004, First Appeal No. 224 of 2004, First Appeal No. 202 of 2004, First Appeal No. 193 of 2004, First Appeal No. 197 of 2004, First Appeal No. 223 of 2004, First Appeal No. 208 of 2004, First Appeal No. 204 of 2004, First Appeal No. 220 of 2004, First Appeal No. 218 of 2004, First Appeal No. 199 of 2004, First Appeal No. 195 of 2004, First Appeal No. 229 of 2004, First Appeal No. 205 of 2004, First Appeal No. 203 of 2004, First Appeal No. 200 of 2004, First Appeal No. 158 of 2004, First Appeal No. 212 of 2004, First Appeal No. 206 of 2004, First Appeal No. 213 of 2004, First Appeal No. 207 of 2004, First Appeal No. 209 of 2004, First Appeal No. 196 of 2004, First Appeal No. 216 of 2004, First Appeal No. 217 of 2004, First Appeal No. 225 of 2004 have been filed by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority challenging the same judgment and award dated 07.10.2003 enhancing the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.107.36 sq. yard to Rs.138/- per sq. yard.

We have heard Sri Manish Goyal and Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri Amit Manohar for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

The land belonging to the claimants situates in village Mamoora, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (the then District Ghaziabad) was acquired for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short 'NOIDA'). The purpose of acquisition was planned development. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was issued on 28-08-1993. Subsequently, a corrigendum was published on 23-10-1993. A declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 08-09-1994. The possession of the land was transferred in favour of NOIDA on 25-03-1995.

By means of an award dated 30-04-1996, the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land for the purpose of compensation as Rs.107.36 paise and the compensation payable to the claimants was determined after making a deduction of 15% from such rate. The claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation @ Rs.400/- per sq. yard. All references were clubbed together and by means of judgment and award dated 7.10.2003 compensation was enhanced to Rs.138/- per sq. yard. Interest, additional interest and solatium as provided under the provision of the Act were also awarded.

The issues arising for adjudication in the present case can be summed up in two folds.

I.Whether the compensation granted to the claimants by the reference court is appropriate and if not what should be the fair market value of the land acquired which should be paid as compensation to the claimants.

II.Whether any deduction is to be made in the compensation awarded by the reference court.

Learned counsel for the claimants contended that voluminous documentary evidence adduced by the claimants before the reference court in respect of the rate awarded by the reference court itself and also the market value determined by this Court in various appeals in respect of the land situate in adjoining villages though have been referred to by the reference court but have not at all been taken into consideration and thus the judgment suffers from an infirmity. It was further submitted that the land in question is fully developed as that of land situate in adjoining villages which have been subject matter of acquisition in which higher rate of compensation has been awarded and thus there appears to be no justifiable reason for the reference court to determine a lesser market value of the land in question and for no rhyme and reason, the compensation awarded to the claimants was not enhanced and not made equivalent to the compensation awarded for the land situate in the adjoining villages. It was also submitted that another basic reason for awarding higher rate for the land situate in adjoining villages was that it was fully developed and situate in close proximity of Delhi as is the case in respect of the land in question and thus discrimination has been meted out to the claimants in the present case by determining a lesser market value and accordingly awarding a lesser compensation is uncalled for and unjustified and this fact was proved by oral testimony as well as documentary evidence on record but has been miserably ignored by the reference court and thereby the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel for the claimants also making reference to various evidence on record of the case submitted that under compromise between the State Government and various tenure holders situate in adjoining villages whose land was subject matter of acquisition were awarded compensation at a higher rate, for no rhyme and reason, has been ignored and not taken into consideration by the reference court while determining the market value of the land in question.

Refuting the submission advanced on behalf of the claimants, Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for NOIDA submitted that since no exemplar in respect of the land situate in the same village was available, no reliance could have been placed on the exemplars or orders passed on reference or in appeal in respect of land situate in adjoining villages and the reference court has rightly not placed reliance on the said evidence. He also submitted that owing to the largeness of the area under acquisition, as a matter of fact, the reference court ought to have made deduction which has wrongly not been made and the reference court has thus committed an illegality in determining the market value and awarding compensation to the claimants @ Rs.138/- per sq. yard. He also submitted that the compromise and exemplars for enhancement in appeal in respect of the land situate in adjoining villages though may have some persuasive value but the same has rightly not been relied upon by the reference court. The evidence in the form of exemplars of the transfer deed executed in respect of the land situate in the same village, since was available on the record, has rightly been made basis for determining the market value of the land.

Both the counsel have placed reliance on various pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in support of their arguments which shall be referred by us at relevant place.

In so far as the evidence available on record is concerned, following evidences were adduced on behalf of the claimants :

I. Compromise dated 8-10-1999 (paper no.17Ga) arrived at in respect of the land situate in adjoining village Hosiarpur wherein the State agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.244/- per sq. yard.

II. Compromise dated 06-02-1999 (paper no.19Ga & 20Ga) arrived at in respect of the land situate in village Agapur wherein also the State agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.244/- sq. yard.

III. Award dated 15-01-2001 (paper no. 21) passed in LAR No. 50/1997 in respect of adjoining village Chhalera Banger wherein notification under Section 4 was issued on 05-01-1991 and compensation was awarded @ Rs.222/- per sq. yard.

IV. Award dated 10-02-2003 (paper no. 41Ga) passed in reference no. 193 of 1996 in respect of land situate in village Morna wherein notification was issued on 01-02-1991 and compensation was awarded @ Rs.264/- per sq. yard.

V. Award dated 30-09-2002 (paper no. 42Ga) passed in LAR No. 384 of 1993 in respect of land situate in village Bhangel Begampur wherein notification under Section 4 was issued on 30-11-1989 and compensation was awarded @ Rs.300/- per sq. yard.

VI. Award dated 09-10-2002 (paper no. 43Ga) passed in LAR No. 396 of 1993 in respect of land situate in village Sarfabad wherein notification under Section 4 was issued on 23-11-1989 and compensation was awarded @ Rs.200/- per sq. yard.

On behalf of NOIDA, the following documentary evidence were adduced :

I.	Award dated 07-07-1997 (paper no. 16Ga) passed in LAR No. 176 of       1991 in respect of  land situate in village Hosiarpur wherein notification under Section 4 was issued on 01-08-1992 and compensation was awarded @ Rs.71.26 per sq. yard.
 
II.	Award/Office Order dated 28-04-1998 (paper no.15Ga) which appears to have been passed on the basis of a compromise and compensation was awarded @ Rs.225/- per sq. yard which included solatium etc. 
 
	Two further documents namely; paper no. 52Ga and 53Ga in the form of two sale deeds dated 19-12-1990 and 10-09-1990 were adduced by NOIDA wherein the land was transferred @ Rs.150/- per sq. yard. 
 

The reference Court analyzing the aforesaid documentary evidence came to the finding that though various evidence in the form of orders passed by the reference court awarding compensation at a higher rate were filed but they did not produce any evidence to support the claim of enhancement in compensation. On the contrary, two sale deeds (paper nos. 52Ga & 53Ga) filed by NOIDA as exemplars where compensation was awarded @ Rs.150 per sq. yard and even if the same is relied upon after making deduction 33%, the compensation to be awarded works out to Rs.138/- per sq. yard.

We have considered the rival contention and also perused the evidence existing on the record of the case.

Part III of the Constitution of India adequately safeguards and provides a fundamental rights to the citizen for payment of compensation at the rate not less than market value for any acquisition by the State of any estate where the land is either held by a person under his personal cultivation or for any building or structure standing or appurtenant thereto unless the law relating to the acquisition provides for payment of just compensation. Second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution provides for the same. The framers of the Constitution ensured and evolved the concept of fair and just compensation equivalent to the market value for the acquisition.

In the case of Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, AIR 1989 SC 1222, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following five principles :

I.Market value on the date of publication of notification under Section 4.

II.The Court to ascertain the best possible sale price of the land in that particular position with particular potentiality.

III.The land to be valued not merely by reference to the use to which the reference to the user at the time of notification under Section 4 but also by reference to use which is reasonably capable of being put in future.

IV.Special adaptability of the land for the purpose for which it is taken as an important factor to be taken into consideration in determining the market value of the land.

V.The value of the land to be determined after taking into consideration its proximity to developed urbanised areas.

Applying the aforesaid tests laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts of the case in hand, not only the land in question is most amply suited for residential purpose or for other industrial development but is also of a high potentiality. The land in question was having a potential value for having utilized for residential and other industrial development and the potentiality would not be enhanced because the acquisition proceedings but is independent of the same because of being in close proximity of land which already stands acquired and fully developed. It had high potential value of its own irrespective of the acquisition. There are fully developed infrastructure facilities all around the land in question namely; buildings, sewer, electric lines, motoraable roads, schools, marketing complex, nursing homes in existence prior to the notification for acquisition of the land in question. As a matter of fact, the evidence on record demonstrates the land to be of a very high potentiality surrounded by a fully developed area.

We have examined 'Sajra' of the entire area existing on the record of the case and find that it is situated within the National Capital Region very near to Delhi and surrounded by villages namely; Hosiarpur, Sarfabad, Morna. The said villages not only are fully developed but the same are situate within a very close proximity to the land in question situate in village Mamoora.

From analysis of the documentary evidence existing on the record of the case in respect of the adjoining villages, we find as follows :

Regarding village Bhangel Begampur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 392 of 1993, the compensation was awarded @ Rs.58.93 paise. The reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.500/- per sq. yard but the same was scaled down to Rs.300/- after a deduction of 1/3rd amount on account of expenditure to be incurred for development charges and largeness of area acquired. The date of notification in respect of the said village under Section 4 and 6 was issued on 30-11-1989 and 16-06-1990 respectively.

With respect to village Morna, the compensation was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.70.40 paise. The date of notification under Section 4 & 6 in respect of the said village was 31-2-1991 and 04-01-1992 respectively. The reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.264/- per sq. yard.

In another adjoining village Sarfabad where the notification under Section 4 & 6 was made on 23-11-1989 and 24-05-1990 respectively, the reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.200/- per sq. yard.

Similarly, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 213 of 1993 in respect of village Chalera Banger where the notification under Section 4 & 6 was dated 27-02-1988 and 15-12-1989, the compensation was awarded @ Rs.42.64 paise. The reference court vide judgment and award dated 28-08-2000 enhanced it to Rs.138.75 paise per sq. yard.

The enhancement of compensation in respect of the land situate in aforesaid adjoining and nearby villages was subject matter of various appeals in this Court, which were connected together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 19-05-2010 by a Division Bench in leading First Appeal No. 1056 of 1990 (Raghunath Singh & others vs. State of U.P.) along with connected appeals. The said Division Bench relying upon the judgment in LAR No. 392 of 1993 (Ram Chandra vs. State U.P. & others) relating to village Bhangel Begampur wherein the rate of Rs.58.93 paise per sq. yard awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced to Rs.500/- sq. yard but after making 1/3rd deduction towards development charges and the largeness of the area, it was scaled down to Rs.300/- per sq. yard, awarded compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq. yard. It may be relevant to quote the following observations from the judgment of Raghunath Singh (Supra) :

"It seems that during the pendency of the instant appeals certain developments took place and subsequent to the same certain awards have been made by the reference court with respect to certain other acquired lands which are similar to that of the appellants herein. To bring the same in the notice of this court, the appellants have filed a supplementary paper-book along with an application for the same to be taken on record on 13.08.2003. It is important to mention here that this court can take notice of such additional evidences under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. provides that:

27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court - [1] The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in Appellate Court. But if

[a] the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

[aa] the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or

[b] the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgement, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

[2] Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.

In accordance with the aforesaid provision, the appellant has produced a large number of document, which are on record, for consideration by this Court in the form of supplementary paper book. These are the awards made by the reference court in subsequent proceedings with respect to the similar land acquired by the defendant/State. According to the argument advanced by the appellant, the aforesaid awards given in these documents as well as the order of the reference court should be taken into account while considering the claim of the appellants. The appellants contend that they have been deprived of their valuable land by the State largesse without being comepnsated justifiably for the same.

The above mentioned documents were permitted to be included as part of the pleadings advanced by the appellants, as we think that the aforementioned documents are important to be taken into consideration by this Court so as to reach on correct factual position to decide the present case. "

It has been further brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the present appeals, few of the original appellants have died and in place of them substitution applications have been moved by the legal representatives, the same have been allowed.

So far as the details of the abovementioned exemplare decisions of the reference court are concerned, which have been filed as additional evidences/supplementary paper-book, they can be summed up as hereunder:-

Firstly, the L.A.R. No. 392/93, Ram Chander & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the same related to the village Bhangel Begumpur, wherein the rate awarded by the S.L.A.O. was Rs. 58.93/- while the rate awarded by the reference court in the reference was Rs. 500/- per sq. yard. The award compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- , has, however, been scaled down to Rs. 300/- after making a deduction of 1/3rd of the amount in the name of development charges owing to largeness of the area acquired. The date of Notification in this matter was 30.11.1989 & 16.06.1990 under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, respectively."

We also take notice of the fact of another Division Bench judgment dated 11-10-2012 passed on First Appeal No. 564 of 1997 in respect of three adjoining and nearby villages namely, Nagla Charan Das, Geha Tilapatabagh and Chhalera Banger affirming the compensation to be awarded @ Rs.297/- per sq. yard. It may be relevant to quote the following relevant portion from the judgment of first Appeal No. 564 of 1997 :

"The cases before us which relates to village Bhangel Begumpur notifications were issued in the years, 1983, 1986 and 1988 and possession was also taken in the years, 1983, 1987 and 1989 So far as other three villages Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilapatabagh and Chhalera Bangar, notifications were issued in the years 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1992 and possession was also taken in the years, 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1995. and the compensation was determined and ultimately under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 by the Reference Court in the year, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008 and 2010 All the four villages are adjacent to each other. The Reference Court ultimately granted similar relief in respect of the matter of Raghuraj Singh (supra). Hence we quantify the rate of compensation as above, the same will be paid following the directions as we have given in the case of Raghuraj Singh (supra)."

We are informed at the Bar that the judgment rendered in the case of Raghuraj Singh (Supra) has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissal of petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 18331 of 2008 along with various other Special Leave to Appeals, NOIDA vs. Pooran Singh, vide judgment and order dated 05-02-2014.

The rate of Rs.297/- to be awarded as compensation in respect of the land situate in adjoining and nearby villages along with statutory dues having the same potentiality as that of the land in question of village Mamoora, we find no reason to hold that claimants in the present appeals are not entitled for payment of compensation @ Rs.297/- particularly, when there is no material on record to indicate that the land does not have the same potentiality and is not surrounded and adjoining the land of the aforesaid villages which are fully developed.

From an overall analysis of the evidence and material on record, we find that the claimants' contention for due fixation and enhancement of compensation based on various decision of the reference court as well as that of this Court in appeals is well founded and convincing. The Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above in respect of the land situate in adjoining and nearby villages being similar in nature as well as having the same potentiality cannot be ignored. Further the acquisition of the land in the case in hand is proximity in time as the land acquired which has been subject matter of the Division Bench judgment of this Court and thus also the compensation awarded in respect of the said villages to a large extent have a binding precedent and not liable to be overlooked or ignored.

On the issue of deduction to be made in the award while being passed on account of the development charges and the largeness of the area, we may straight away refer to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat & another; reported in JT 2001 (3) SC 90 wherein in paragraph 12 it has been held as under:

"12. .................... With reference to the question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, when we scan, we find for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each landholder's land is clubbed together; then the area becomes large. Each landowner's holdings are of small area. ..........................."

At this very stage, reference may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna & others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2298 wherein in paragraph 13, it has been observed as under :

"13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. It the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances, it is possible to utilise the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available ad it did not require any further development. We, are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs.10/- per sq. yard to Rs.6.50 paise per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The appellants, therefore, succeed."

A latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Premwati vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 57 clinches the issue. The Hon'ble Apex Court while affirming the decision of the High Court in determining the value of the land based on the value of adjoining land held that there is no warrant of making any deduction therefrom. It may be relevant to quote the following from the said reports :

"10. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court in having relied upon Balbir Singh case and Bedi Ram case was perfectly justified. We would, however, hasten to add that when once the Division Bench rightly felt that whatever was decided in Balbir Singh case, so far as it related to the value of the land fixed therein, can be applied even in respect of the land situated in Sahibabad Daulatpur, which is an adjacent village and the acquisition in respect of the lands situated in Samaipur and Siraspur villages, we are of the considered opinion that the same value, which was applied in Balbir Singh case should have been applied even in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants. We say so because we find in Balbir Singh case, while fixing the land value in a sum of Rs.50,000 per bigha, the High Court considered the various sale deeds of the period between 18-01-1982 and 22-07-1983.

11. In the case on hand, we are concerned with the land situated in Sahibabad Daulatpur Village and the extent of land which was acquired from the appellants was 94 bighas 2 biswas of different khasra numbers covered by Award No. 26/83-84 and 4 biswas in Khasra No. 33/26, covered by Award No. 57/83-84. Thus, the extent of land acquired from the appellants was also considerably large. The total extent of land thus acquired in all the four villages was around 785 bighas of contiguous lands and the acquisition was for the purpose of establishing Delhi Technological University.

12. We are, therefore, of the view that while every other reasoning of the Division Bench in adopting the value, which was fixed in Balbir Singh case was justified, there is no need to deduct any amount from the said value, inasmuch as the exemplar relied upon by the Division Bench in Balbir Singh case, were all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18-01-1982 to 22-7-1983 i.e. prior to the very first Notification issued in respect of the present acquisition of all the four villages viz. 1-8-1983, which Notification pertains to the lands belonging to the appellants which were situated in Sahibabad Daulatpur Village.

13. Therefore, even while confirming the reasoning of the Division Bench in relying upon Balbir Singh case for enhancing the value, we only modify the rate fixed by the Division Bench to a sum of Rs.50,000 per bigha instead of Rs.42,000 per bigha. With the modification only in respect to the rate per bigha, in all other respects the Division Bench decision deserves to be confirmed. We however, do not find any merit in the claim of the appellants for claiming any further enhancement beyond the sum of Rs.50,000 per bigha, inasmuch as there was absolutely no legally acceptable material in support of any such claim."

The land of village Mamoora which was fully developed with all modern amenities, the argument advanced on behalf of NOIDA for making deduction on account of development to be made and the largeness of the area has no force.

Reliance placed by us upon the earlier Division Bench of this Court enhancing the compensation in respect of the adjoining villages though not inter se between the parties finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pal Singh & others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 225. In the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the question whether a judgment of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of acquired land, even though not inter se parties, was admissible in evidence in a subsequent, either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired could be deduced or inferred, expressed the opinion as under :

"No doubt, a judgment of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands, even though not inter partes, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred as has been held by the Calcutta High Court in H.K. Mallick v. State of W.B. Based on the authority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Secy. Of State for India in Council v. India General Steam Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd., where the Judicial Committee did refuse to interfere with the High Court judgment in a land acquisition case based on previous awards, holding that no question of principle was involved in it."

For the aforesaid facts and discussions, the claimants whose land is situate in village Mamoora and subject matter of acquisition, are held to be entitled for payment of compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits, solatium, interest and additional interest as provided under Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Accordingly , First Appeal No. 196 of 2011, First Appeal No. (218) of 2004, First Appeal No. (150) of 2004, First Appeal No. (1149) of 2003, First Appeal No. (1233) of 2003, First Appeal No. (1222) of 2003, First Appeal No. (198) of 2004, First Appeal No. (153) of 2004, First Appeal No. (1227 ) of 2003, First Appeal No. 321 of 2013, First Appeal No. (1155 ) of 2003, First Appeal No. ( 148) of 2004, First Appeal No. (136 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. (1231 ) of 2003, First Appeal No. (152 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. ( 155 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. (230 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. 812 of 2012, First Appeal No. (133 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. ( 225) of 2004, First Appeal No. (229 ) of 2004, First Appeal No. 808 of 2012, First Appeal No. (1153 ) of 2003 and First Appeal No. (1221 ) of 2003 filed by the claimant-appellants are allowed.

First Appeal No. 231 of 2004, First Appeal No. 228 of 2004, First Appeal No. 222 of 2004, First Appeal No. 230 of 2004, First Appeal No. 221 of 2004, First Appeal No. 211 of 2004, First Appeal No. 227 of 2004, First Appeal No. 226 of 2004, First Appeal No. 215 of 2004, First Appeal No. 198 of 2004, First Appeal No. 219 of 2004, First Appeal No. 214 of 2004, First Appeal No. 192 of 2004, First Appeal No. 210 of 2004, First Appeal No. 201 of 2004, First Appeal No. 194 of 2004, First Appeal No. 224 of 2004, First Appeal No. 202 of 2004, First Appeal No. 193 of 2004, First Appeal No. 197 of 2004, First Appeal No. 223 of 2004, First Appeal No. 208 of 2004, First Appeal No. 204 of 2004, First Appeal No. 220 of 2004, First Appeal No. 218 of 2004, First Appeal No. 199 of 2004, First Appeal No. 195 of 2004, First Appeal No. 229 of 2004, First Appeal No. 205 of 2004, First Appeal No. 203 of 2004, First Appeal No. 200 of 2004, First Appeal No. 158 of 2004, First Appeal No. 212 of 2004, First Appeal No. 206 of 2004, First Appeal No. 213 of 2004, First Appeal No. 207 of 2004, First Appeal No. 209 of 2004, First Appeal No. 196 of 2004, First Appeal No. 216 of 2004, First Appeal No. 217 of 2004, First Appeal No. 225 of 2004 filed by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority-appellants are dismissed.

In some of these appeals, some of the claimants/appellants have died and substitution applications have been filed to bring on record the legal representatives. Delay in filing of the applications is condoned. All the substitution applications are allowed. We, however, make it clear that if there is any dispute regarding the legal representative or the claim of compensation, the same may be put forward before the Land Acquisition Authorities.

In some of the appeals, the deficiency as reported by the Stamp Reporter has been made good. The defects stand removed. These applications also stand allowed.

However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs.

Dt.19-09-2014

nd.