Power Grid Corporation Of India ... vs M/S. Garg Famrs And Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 1764 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 34
 

 
1. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 837 of 2003
 
Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.
 
Respondent :- M/S. Garg Famrs And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava
 

 
2. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 838 of 2003
 
Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.
 
Respondent :- M/S.Ranks India & others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava
 

 
3. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 839 of 2003
 
Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.
 
Respondent :- M/S.Haryana Udhog And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava
 

 
4. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 840 of 2003
 
Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.
 
Respondent :- M/S.Nagma  Enterprises And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.

1. These four appeals have come up at the instance of the Power Grid Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') who is aggrieved by award/judgment dated 24.12.2002 passed by Sri Umesh Chandra, IInd Additional District Judge, Court V Ghaziabad adjudicating 14 Land Acquisition References (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A.Rs') including L.A.Rs No. 515 of 1994,514/1994,519/1994 and 518/1994.

2. These appeals have been preferred under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1894'),assailing market value determined by Reference Court for the purpose of payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 52 /- per sq. yard.

3. For the purpose of establishing office of appellant, a Public Sector Corporation, created for being engaged in the activities of distribution and transmission of electrical energy to various Electricity Boards, National Thermal Power corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.T.P.C.') sought to acquire 102-13-6 Bigha land in village Naanu and 69-15-1 Bigha land in vilage Mandola, Pargana Loni, District Ghaziabad. The N.T.P.C. made proposal for establishing 400KV sub-Station and Staff quarters . The State Government initiated acquisition proceedings and issued notification under section 4(1) of Act 1894 on 25.2.1988.Notification under section 6 (1) of Act 1894 was published on 15.8.1988. Possession of land was taken on 7.12.1988. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad ( hereinafter referred to as 'S.L.A.O.') made award dated 9.8.1990 determining market value at the rate of Rs. Rs. 20/- per sq. yard. Besides, it also directed for payment of solatium, interest for different period as per the provisions of Act 1894.

4. Aggrieved there-against,tenure holders filed applications for making reference under section 18 of Act 1894 to District Judge,Ghaziabad for determining market value under section 23, pursuant whereto, impugned award has been passed by court below. Market value has been enhanced to Rs. 52 /- per sq. yard.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the aforesaid market value determined by Reference Court is excessive, unreasonable and unjust, therefore the award of S.L.A.O should be restored.

6. From the impugned award we find that Reference Court has relied upon an earlier Award dated 4.12.2000 passed in L.A.R. No. 512 of 1991, wherein market value of acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs. 52 /- per sq. yard and the said award pertains to same acquisition proceedings. Copy of award dated 4.12.2000, whereby 36 L.A.Rs were adjudicated by Sri R.P.Shukla, Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad has been placed on record, which shows that there were several sale deeds executed before notification dated 26.3.1988 under section 4(1) of Act 1894 showing that land was transferred by sale in the aforesaid two villages at the rate of Rs. 65 /- per sq. Yard and there was no reason to reject those documents. Following aforesaid exemplars, 20% reduction was allowed and thereafter he determined market value at the rate of Rs. 52 /- per sq. yard.

7. Moot question for consideration before this Court is "whether market value determined at Rs. 52/- per sq. yard is just, valid and in accordance with law".

8. Before considering the aforesaid question on merits, it would be appropriate to consider various principles laid down by this Court from time to time in the last more than half century, relevant for determining market value.

9. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751, the Court has said that a reference is like a suit which is to be treated as an original proceeding. The claimants is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the Award is inadequate. However, for the said purpose the Court would not consider the material, relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer in Award, unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. The Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the Award of Land Acquisition Officer. The material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by the Court suo motu unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before the Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rate prevailing on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of Act, 1894. The basic principle which has to be followed by Reference Court for determining market value of land, as if, the valuer i.e. the Court is a hypothetical purchaser, willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price, as on the crucial day, i.e., date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894. The willingness of vendor to sale land on reasonable price shall be presumed. The Court, therefore, would co-relate market value reflated in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Only genuine instances would be taken into account. Sometimes even post-notification instances may be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. Proximity from time angle and from situation angle would be relevant considerations to find out most comparable instances out of the genuine instances. From identified instances which would provide index of market value, price reflected therein may be taken as norm and thereafter to arrive at the true market value of land under acquisition, suitable adjustment by plus and minus factors has to be made. In other words a balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn and the relevant factors may be valuated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. The market value of land under acquisition has to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instances taken for plus factors and unloading for minus factors.

10. Some of the illustrative examples of plus and minus factors given by the Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) are as under:

Plus Factors

Minus Factors

Smallness of size

Largeness of area

Proximity to a road.

Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.

Frontage on a road.

Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.

Nearness to developed area.

Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

Regular shape.

Remoteness from developed locality.

Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.

Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.

Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

11. The size of the land, therefore, would constitute an important factor to determine market value. It cannot be doubted that small size plot may attract a large number of persons being within their reach which will not be possible in respect of large block of land wherein incumbent will have to incur extra liability in preparing a lay out and carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers etc. The Court said that in such matters, the factors can be discounted by making deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging between 20% to 50%, to account for land, required to be set apart for carving out road etc. and for plotting out small plots.

12. The concept of smaller and larger plots should be looked into not only from the angle as to what area has been acquired, but also the number of land holders and size of their plots. When we talk of concept of prudent seller and prudent buyer, we cannot ignore the fact that in the category of prudent seller the individual land holder will come. It is the area of his holding which will be relevant for him and not that of actual total and collective large area which is sought to be acquired.

13. In V.M. Salgoacar & brother Ltd. vs. Union of India (1995) 2 SCC 302 the land acquired by notification dated 06.07.1970 in village Chicalim near Goa Airport belonged to a single owner. The Court observed when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. Having said so the Court further said " though the small plots ipso facto may not form the basis per se to determine the compensation, they would provide foundation for determining the market value. On its basis, giving proper deduction, the market value ought to be determined".

14. Again in Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) S.C.C 152, 20 acres of land in Akola town was sought to be acquired by notification published on 11.08.1965 under section 4(1) of Act, 1894 which was also owned by a single person. It is in this context the Court said "the Reference Court committed manifest error in determining compensation on the basis of sq. ft. When land of an extent of 20 acres is offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously "no".

15. We need not go into a catena of other decisions rendered in the last several decades since we are benefited of a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 454/2003 and other connected matters, Meerut Development Authority through Its Secretary vs. Basheshwar Dayal (since deceased) Through His L.Rs. and another decided on 01.08.2013 wherein the legal principles settled by Apex Court in various judgments, relevant for determination of market value have been crystallized as under:

(i) Function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1),

(ii) The method for determination of market value may be : -

(a) Opinion of experts,

(b) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages,

(c) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. (Ref. (1994) 4 S.C.C 595 para 5 Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & others)

(iii) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive but subject to the following factors:-

(a) Sale must be a genuine transaction,

(b) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act,

(c) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land,

(d) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land,

(e) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired,

(f) if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land.

(iv) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition which are as under : -

Positive factors

Negative factors

(i) Smallness of size

(i) Largeness of area

(ii) Proximity to a road.

(ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.

(iii) Frontage on a road.

(iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.

(iv) Nearness to developed area.

(iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

(v) Regular shape.

(v) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

(vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.

(vi) Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.

(vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

(v) For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.

(vi) Deduction not to be done when land holders have been deprived of their holding 15 to 20 years back and have not been paid any amount.

(vii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. (Ref. (2011) 8 S.C.C page 9, Valliyammal and another Vs. Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition and another , paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19).

(viii) When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. (Ref. (2012) 5 S.C.C 432, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registere ), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others).

(ix) In view of Section 51A of the Act certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence, even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. (Ref. (2004) 8 S.C.C 270 para 28 and 38, Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and others).

(x) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors :

(a) Existing geographical situation of the land.

(b) Existing use of the land.

(c) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/ or developed area.

(d) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.

(xi) Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.

(xii) The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing.

(xiii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost".(Ref. (2012) 7 S.C.C 595 paras 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22, Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla ( dead) and others).

16. In Bhupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 2015(5) SCC 801, the Court said that the fair market value of acquired land is required to be determined under Section 23 of Act, 1894 on the basis of market rate of adjacent land similarly situated to the acquired land prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent, similarly situated, lands for fixing market value of acquired land may be permitted.

17. Similar view was expressed in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 91; and K. Devalimma & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams & Ors., 2015 (5) SCALE 454.

18. In Bhule Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors., JT 2014 (5) SC 110, the Court said : "The market value of the land should be determined taking into consideration the existing geographical situation of the land, existing use of the land, already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or notionally or intentionally renowned tourist destination or developed area, and market value of other land situated in the same locality or adjacent or very near to acquired land and also the size of such a land."

19. The Court further held that Court should not take into consideration use for which land is sought to be acquired and its remote potential value in future. In arriving at the market value, it is the duty of party to lead evidence in support of its case, in absence of which the court is not under a legal obligation to determine market value merely as per the prayer of the claimant.

20. We have to examine the award in question in the light of exposition of law discussed and laid down in the aforesaid authorities to find out answer to the point for determination which needs adjudication in this case, as to whether market value determined by Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 52/- per sq. yard is just and valid or excessive, unreasonable and does not show correct market value on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of Act, 1894.

21. In the present case, with regard to the ancillary development of acquired land, Reference Court in award dated 4.12.2000 has recorded its findings as under:-

**;g fufoZokn gS fd lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ,u0Vh0ih0lh ds lc LVs'ku ;w LVkQ DokVZj ds fuekZ.k gsrq vftZr dh xbZ gS vkSj mldk mi;ksx ek= ,d bdkbZ ds :i esa fd;k tkuk ik;k tkrk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa fodkl vkfn ij Hkwfe ij O;; foi{khx.k ds }kjk fd;k tkuk lEHkkfor ugha gSA**

"It is undisputed that the entire land has been acquired for construction of Sub-Station of NTPC and U Staff quarters and its user is found to be in the form of an Unit. In these circumstances there is no probability for expenditure incurred on development etc. by the opposite parties."

(English translation by the Court)

22. In the present case, Reference Court has largely relied on its earlier award dated 4.12.2000 in L.A.R. No. 512 of 1991 and in other connected matter which had arisen from the same acquisition proceedings relating to these very two villages and, therefore, whatever has been stated therein, would admittedly apply to the present appeals also.

23. Claimants respondents in L.A.R No. 512 of 1991 prayed for compensation at much higher rate of Rs. 500/- per. sq. yard but that has been rejected. Exemplars relied upon by claimants showing transaction of sale of land at Rs. 132/- per sq. yard have also been rejected. The court below has relied on various exemplars referred to in the award of S.L.A.O. in which rate of land was Rs.62.70 and Rs. 65/- per sq. yard. It found that there was no justification to reject those exemplars but looking to the fact that the same pertained to smaller piece of land, a deduction of 20 % has been held justified and that is how market value at the rate of Rs. 52 /- per sq. yard has been determined.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that deduction should have been at-least 40 to 50% but could not show any reason why such higher deduction should have been made. The land situate in an area which was already developed. Deduction with respect to the largeness of area vary from 20% to 75%, depending on various factors. The Court below has applied deduction of 20%. The appellant seeks higher deduction but could not explain or show relevant factors which may justify higher deduction in the case in hand.

25. It is no doubt true that percentage of deduction varies and in a given case higher deduction would be justified. The Court below, in the present case, has allowed 20% deduction. Appellant is aggrieved thereto and wants higher percentage of deduction. Onus lies upon appellant to show that there existed relevant factors and circumstances justifying higher deduction than 20% and unless existence of such reasons and factors are shown, the view taken by the court below is not be disturbed, varied or reversed, on mere asking of one of the parties, since in its own view, there should have been higher deduction. Interest of claimants obviously would have been to seek for higher rate of interest of compensation while acquiring body would be interested to make payment as less as permissible. This conflicting interest has to be resolved and adjudicated by Court.

26. Here, we would also like to observe that these appeals have actually arisen from acquisition of land of respondent(s), who is/are basically farmer(s). The State, in exercise of its statutory powers, has taken away valuable source of earning livelihood and rather, the only source of livelihood available to respondent(s), and in lieu thereof, compensation is sought to be paid. It is true that acquisition of land is a statutory right of State and therefore, respondent(s), by itself, may not oppose it successfully. But the fact remains that action of State has deprived respondents from having the solitary means of earning livelihood, which is being pursued, by farmer(s), normally from generation to generation. The cash amount, paid to them, does not result, normally, in acquisition of another land by these persons. Experience has shown that most of time, cash money is spent on material luxuries and thereafter these poor farmers, deprived of their land, come on road, find it difficult to sustain a bare two times meal for themselves as also the family. The conflict of development of nation and right of individual relating to his very sustenance, has a long chequered history of litigation as also legislation, giving rise to multifarious amendments in Land Acquisition Act. Now, a new enactment has come up.

27. The fact remains that agricultural land is continuously reducing though population of country is increasing and thereby creating another complication in the field of agricultural produce. The Court also finds that in the matter of compensation, if amount, thought to be adequate by State, is not accepted by Court below and compensation is increased, almost invariably land holders/farmers are dragged to higher Courts with continued litigation, which result in exhaustion of such person(s) not only in respect of their labour and energy but residuary worth and financial capacity etc. also. Sufficient amount of compensation, they are compelled to spent, in such litigation also.

28. The appeals normally are filed by State and its instrumentalities, as a matter of course, without any proper initial scrutiny whether it is worth filing or not and that is how a very huge chunk of appeal, in such matters, are filed by State against land holders/farmers, who are already denuded of their most valuable possession i.e. land/agricultural land. The State has constitutional obligation of a welfare State, must think over such aspect seriously. There should be an honest attempt to curtail frivolous, unfruitful litigation, particularly, if it can save innocent and poor citizens from litigious harassment.

29. In the present case, court below has found circumstances justifying 20% deduction. In order to take a different view in the matter, this Court unless is provided with existence of reasons, justifying higher deduction, it would not in a mechanical manner interfere with the award given by Reference Court, applying 20% deduction. Moreover, we are of the view that the Body who has acquired the land in question is 'State' as defined under Article 12 of Constitution of India. Acquisition is by forcibly taking away land of private individuals. The State, therefore should not litigate with private individual(s) like private litigants and, instead, adopt broad-hearted view, particularly when claimants are those who have been deprived of their land forcibly and many of them might come to situation, where they may lose the only source of earning livelihood for themselves and their family members. Their cause needs to be looked into with due compassion and attempt should have been made to pay them appropriate compensation, with which they may maintain themselves dignified life and explore any other source of earning livelihood in place of their erstwhile source of livelihood, which they are losing on account of acquisition proceedings.

30. We may remind the case that a decree of reversal is not to be passed as a matter of right but the judgment of the court below can be reversed by Appellate Court only when justified reasons and grounds are available.

31. In S.V.R.Mudaliar (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Rajabu F.Buhari (Mrs) (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1607, the Court in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment has upheld the contention that though the Appellate Court is within its right to take a different view on the question of fact, but that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by Trial Court in arriving at the findings in question. The Appellate Court before reversing a finding of fact has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by Trial Court. The Apex Court relied and followed an earlier decision of Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, 10 CWN 630 and in para 15 of the judgment said:

"There is no need to pursue the legal principle, as we have no doubt in our mind that before reversing a finding of fact, the appellate court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the trial court. This view of ours finds support from what was stated by the Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, (1906) 10 Cal.W.N. 630, wherein, while regarding the appellate judgment of the High Court of judicature at Fort William as "careful and able", it was stated that it did not "come to close quarters with the judgment which it reviews, and indeed never discusses or even alludes to the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge."

32. Following the above decision Hon'ble B.L.Yadav, J in Smt. Sona Devi Vs. Nagina Singh and Ors. AIR 1997 Patna 67 observed that whenever judgment of Appellate Court is a judgment of reversal, it is the primary duty of Appellate Court while reversing the findings of Trial Court to consider the reasons given by Trial Court and those reasons must also be reversed. Unless that is done, judgment of Lower Appellate Court cannot be held to be consistent with the requirement of Order XLI, Rule 31, which is a mandatory provision.

33. The above view has also been followed recently in Jaideo Yadav Vs. Raghunath Yadav & Anr., 2009(3) PLJR 529 wherein the Court said that Trial Court recorded its findings but Lower Appellate Court had not reversed the said findings and rather on the basis of some findings of its own, title appeal was allowed by Lower Appellate Court without appreciating findings of Trial Court on the concerned issue. The Court then said :

"The law is well settled in this regard that where the judgment of the lower appellate court is a judgment of reversal it is primary duty of the appellate court to consider the reasons given by the trial court and those reasons must also be reversed."

34. This Court has also followed the same view in Doodhnath and another Vs. Deonandan AIR 2006 Allahabad 3.

35. In our view, Reference Court has taken a balanced and equitable view in the matter and the impugned award warrants no interference.

36. It is then contended that no safeda or otherwise tree was found standing at the time of acquisition and the award made for the purpose of payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 400 /- per tree is bad. In this regard, we find from the record as also the impugned award that certified copy of Khasra ( revenue record) was filed before court below in which there was a specific mention of trees. The claimants' oral evidence of Ramesh Mittal, stating that trees of 8 to 10 years was also found credible in absence of anything elicited in the cross examination. The appellant disputed very existence of trees but that was found contrary to documentary evidence ,i.e. copy of Khasra of acquired land of 1393 and 1394 Fasli. Despite repeated query made by this Court, learned counsel for appellant could not explain, when revenue record clearly mention existence of tress; how those facts could have been ignored when no evidence was adduced by appellant before court below, otherwise.

37. Looking to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that land in question situate in already developed area, we do not find any manifest error in the impugned award warranting interference. The issue raised by appellant is answered against it.

38 Appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed with costs.

Order Date :- 12.8.2015

aks/Akn