Allahabad High Court

Pran Alias Kalia & Another vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 1 December, 2015

Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rakesh Srivastava




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 34								      AFR
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 388 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Pran Alias Kalia & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- J.C.Bhardwaj, Surendra Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Awadhesh Tiwari,Madan Mohan
 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is claimants' appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1894') arising from award/judgment and decree dated 02.04.2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhari, Iind Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Reference Court'), adjudicating 16 Land Acquisition References (hereinafter referred to as 'LAR') including LAR no. 65 of 2000, Pran alias Kalia & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., determining market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard for the purpose of payment of compensation to land owners. Besides, it has also directed for payment of solatium at the rate of 30% of market value i.e. Rs. 120/- per square yard, 12% additional compensation and interest for various periods, as per provisions of Act, 1894.

3. Only point for determination for deciding this appeal is "whether claimants-appellants are entitled for higher determination of market value than Rs. 120/- per square yard or the rate determined by court below is just, valid and needs no interference."

4. The brief facts relevant for proper adjudication of the matter are given as under.

5. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'UPAEVP') is a body constituted under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act, 1965'). It proposed to acquire certain land in villages Arthla, Jhandapur, Prahladgarhi, Mohiuddinpur Kanavani, Shahibabad and Makanpur for developing residential scheme. At the instance of UPAEVP, State of U.P. initiated acquisition proceedings under Act, 1894 read with U.P. Act, 1965.

6. A notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 proposing to acquire 1157.895 acres of land in the aforesaid villages was published on 26.06.1982. Notification under Section 6 (1) of Act, 1894 was published on 28.02.1987.

7. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO') after considering objections filed by Tenure-holders under Section 9 of Act, 1894 made Award No. 3 of 1987 dated 27.02.1989. It determined marked value at Rs. 50/- per square yard in respect to all the villages though observed that circle rate were Rs. 50/- per square yard in villages Prahladgarhi and Makanpur, Rs. 100/- per square yard in village Arthla, Rs. 150/- per square yard in villages Jhandapur and Shahibabad; and Rs. 20/- per square yard in village Mohiuddinpur Kanavani.

8. The area of land proposed to be acquired in the aforesaid six villages is as under:-

Village

Area (in Acres)

Arthla

358-93

Jhandapur

36-947

Prahladgarhi

437-379

Makanpur

75-6156

Mohiuddinpur Kanavani

141-97

Shahibabad

107-05

9. Details of the disputed land of claimant-appellants situated in Village Prahladgarhi which is subject matter of this appeal are as under:-

Sl. No.

Khata No.

Khasra No.

Acquired Land

(in Sq. Yard)

623/2 M

2117.5

623/2 M

1058.75

623/2 M

2117.5

Total Area

5293.75

10. Aggrieved by aforesaid determination made by SLAO, land owners made applications for reference under Section 18 of Act 1894 to District Judge, for determination of market value under Section 23. Pursuant thereto, LAR No. 65 of 2000 has been adjudicated by court below vide impugned award/judgment dated 02.04.2002.

11. Learned counsel appearing for appellants at the outset stated that arising from same acquisition proceedings, another set of references including LAR No. 56 of 1995, Asha Ram & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others was decided by Shri O.P. Goyal, VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, vide award/judgment dated 23.05.2000. Therein, Reference Court determined market value for the purpose of compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard. The appeals, at the instance of the claimant-landowners against award dated 23.05.2000 came to this Court. One of such appeal i.e. First Appeal No. 827 of 2000, Asha Ram And Another vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad And Another came to be decided vide Court's judgment dated 28.10.2015 by which this Court has upheld aforesaid award and affirmed market value of acquired land for the purpose of payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard.

12. He also pointed out that in fact against similar award determining market value at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard, even, U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad (acquiring body) filed First Appeal No. 56 of 2005, U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Jawahar Lal & others which has been decided and dismissed vide judgment dated 21.07.2015.

13. Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the claimant, however, submitted that on the question of market rate there are some authorities which are not referred to in the judgment in Asha Ram (supra) and if Court may consider those authorities the claimants believe that they would be entitled for higher compensation, therefore, those authorities may also be looked into. Though this appeal is already covered by the judgment in Asha Ram (supra) still to satisfy ourselves as well as to do complete justice so that appellants may not have any impression that some part of their argument has not been considered, we have heard Sri Surendra Tiwari, counsel for appellants who has placed those authorities on which he is relying and advanced his arguments.

14. The first authority relied by him is Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. Vs. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality reported in AIR 1992 SC 2298. The aforesaid authority is relied on the proposition, if area of acquired land is already developed and has roads, drainage, electricity, communication in vicinity, no deduction towards development should be made. Court in para 11 of judgment has said:-

"11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. lf smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified."

15. The exposition of law is well settled but its application depends on the facts of individual case. We find no application of above authority in the case in hand. In fact we find that this aspect has already been taken note of in Asha Ram (Supra) as would be evident from paragraphs 6 to 13 and 34, 35 of the judgment reproduced as under:-

"6. Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for appellants contended that court below has found that circle rate in villages Jhandapur and Shahibabad was Rs. 150/- per square yard yet it has determined compensation at Rs. 120/- per square yard only i.e. even below circle rate fixed by Collector for the purpose of stamp duty. He further contended that appellants have adduced evidence in the form of exemplar showing higher rate but the said exemplars have been discarded for invalid reasons and the court has made award relying on earlier awards in various LARs.

7. The Reference Court has mentioned award dated 13.04.1998 passed by Sri Dharam Singh, VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in LAR No. 58 of 1992 and eight other connected references determining market value at Rs. 120/- per square yard in respect to the land acquired in village Arthla, Jhandapur and Shahibabad vide same acquisition notification whereby the land of the appellants has been acquired. Similarly in another case of this very appellant, LAR No. 160 of 1998 connected with 10 other LARs Asha Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Sri Dharam Singh, VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad has determined market value at Rs. 120/- per square yard of acquired land in village Prahladgarhi vide same acquisition notification with which we are concerned. Similar is the rate determined in LAR No. 467 of 1991, Raj Kumar and others versus State of U.P. whereby market value of land in village Jhandapur was determined at Rs. 120/- per square yard.

8. The court below has followed the aforesaid awards observing that the land in question is similarly placed as that was involved in the aforesaid references wherein market value has been determined at Rs. 120/- per square yard and, therefore, claimants are entitled for the same treatment.

9. Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to sale deeds which were cited in evidence on behalf of claimants appellants and are as under:-

Sl. No.

Date

Nature of document

area

Rate (in Rs.)

Parties

05/05/82

Sale deed

125 sq. yard

150/- per sq. yard

Tirath Singh to Badad Singh and Jagpal Singh

08/06/82

Sale deed

50 sq. yard

200/- per sq. yard

Manmohan Singh to Sushila

15/01/86

Sale deed

60 sq. yard

200/- per sq. yard

Ram Kishan to Surajvati

13/01/86

Sale deed

107 sq. yard

200/- per sq. yard

Shyam Singh & others to Jagpal Singh

10. The Reference Court has rejected sale deeds dated 05.05.1982, 08.06.1982 and 15.01.1986 observing that the said documents were not proved by producing vendors or vendees in evidence. The sale deed dated 13.01.1986 has been rejected observing that it is after almost three and half years from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) which was published on 26.06.1982 and, therefore, is not appropriate to be relied on.

11. We also find from para 16 of the award that claimants appellants themselves relied on award dated 13.04.1998 passed in LAR No. 58 of 1992 Shyam Pal Versus State of U.P. and others and eight other connected references and pleaded that they should be paid compensation at-least at the rate it has been determined in the said award dated 13.04.1998. This plea has found favour with the court below and award has been made accordingly.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the sale deeds dated 05.05.1982, 08.06.1982 being very contemporary to the notification dated 26.06.1982 published under Section 4 (1), hence ought to have been followed.

13. We find that reliance placed by appellants on the aforesaid sale deeds would not help claimants in any manner. In our view the court below has already been considerate enough in determining market value at Rs. 120/- per square yard else the aforesaid two sale deeds, if relied, would have cause in a lower market value. Before elaborating our aforesaid observation we find it appropriate to remind ourselves with principles laid down in last several decades on the question how market value of land acquired forcibly under provisions of Act, 1894 should be determined.

34. We have seen that in such circumstances courts have held that deduction with respect to development, even if would not apply, still deduction with respect to largeness of area will have to apply. The percentage of such deduction depending upon the difference in area, vary from 20 to 75 percent. If we apply minimum deduction of 20 percent in respect to the rate at which land was transferred by the aforesaid two sale deeds of 1982 the market value would come to Rs. 120/- & Rs. 160/- per square yard respectively. Though considering extremely small area covered by the aforesaid sale deeds deduction of at least 40 to 50 percent would be justified, and in that case market value will stand reduced much below to Rs. 120/- per square yard which has already been awarded by court below.

35. Realizing the situation, learned counsel for appellants after some argument could not dispute that it would be appropriate for this court not to interfere with the award in question so as to cause any prejudice to the appellants."

16. Thus we find that proposition as laid down in Bhagwathula Samanna (supra) does not help appellant in any manner.

17. The next decision is Thakarsibhai Devjibhai & others Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujrat and another reported in J.T. 2001 (3) SC 90. There, in para 12, Court has said:-

"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. Even otherwise, visioning in the line with the submission for the State, we find Ext. 16 is about 2 hectares of land which cannot be said to be a small piece of land. So far, the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior."

18. The aforesaid observation also does not help appellant for the same reason as we have already noted and discussed in judgment of this Court in Asha Ram (Supra).

19. Gauri Shankar Gaur Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1994 SC 169 was a case pertaining to acquisition of land for a scheme floated by UPAEVP for Rampur city. Therein, dispute was with respect to application of Sections 4 and 6 as amended in 1984 to the acquisition made under the provisions of U.P. Act, 1965. Court in para 33 and 41 has held:-

"33. Section 55 of the Act read with the schedule made an express incorporation of the provisions of Section 4(i) and Section 6 as modified and incorporated in the schedule. The schedule effected necessary structural amendments to Sections 4, 6, 17 and 23 incorporating therein the procedure and principles with necessary modifications. Sections 28(2) and 32(1) prescribed procedure for publication of the notifications under Sections 28(1) and 32(1) of the Act without prescribing any limitation. It is a complete code in itself. The Act is not wholly unworkable or ineffectual though maybe incompatible with provisos to Section 6(1) of L.A. Act. The U.P. Legislature did not visualize that later amendment to Central Act 1 of' 1894 i.e. L.A. Act would be automatically extended. We have, therefore, no hesitation to conclude that Section 55 and the schedule adapted only by incorporation Sections 4(1) and 6(1) and the subsequent amendments to Section 6 did not become part of the Act and they have no effect on the operation of the provisions of the Act.

41. Thus considered, we hold that the view of the Full Bench' is perfectly legal and already was upheld by this Court. The limitation of three years prescribed under the first proviso to Section 6 of the L.A. Act is not attracted in its application to the State of U.P. vis-a-vis the procedure prescribed in paragraph 2 of the schedule to the Act read with Section 55 of the Act. We would reiterate that the State had undertaken, before the Full Bench, to property compensate the land owners for the delayed period as it had occurred due to several supervening events beyond the State's control. The appeals and writ petitions are dismissed, but without costs."

20. In Gauri Shankar (Supra), there is a separate judgment delivered by another Hon'ble Judge R.M. Sahai and his Lordship gave some different reasons. The Division Bench of Apex Court in view of different reasons given by two Hon'ble judges passed following common order as quoted in para 52 of the judgment:-

"52. Though for different reasons, we have come to the same conclusions that the civil appeals and writ petitions shall stand dismissed. But the appellants and petitioners shall be paid compensation on the market rate prevalent in the year the declarations analogous to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued. In view of the special facts and peculiar circumstances and not as of law we have adapted this course."

21. Learned counsel for appellants then submitted that this Court should follow directions contained in para 50 of judgment which is part of the opinion of Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. but we find that two Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench have recorded their separate judgments which have different reasons and in these circumstances the Bench ultimately passed a concise majority order contained in para 52 which does not support what has been contended by learned counsel for appellants before this Court. Hence in our view this judgment also does not help appellants in any manner.

22. Then reliance is placed on Court's decision in Jagdish Chandra Vs. New Okhla Industial Development Authority Noida reported in 2008 (1) ADJ 253 and the bunch of appeals led by First Appeal No. 910 of 2000, Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Kashi Ram and others and other 95 connected appeals decided vide judgment dated 13.11.2014. It is pointed out that in both these judgments, Court has allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard.

23. We first propose to consider the decision in Jagdish Chandra (supra). We find that this decision has already been considered by a Division Bench consisted of one of us (Sudhir Agarwal, J.) in First Appeal No. 737 of 1995, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Noida Vs. Surendra Singh and 91 connected appeals decided on 15.04.2015. The decision in Jagdish Chandra (supra) has been discussed in para 42 & 43 which read as under:-

"42. First of the decisions is Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA and another (First Appeal No. 744 of 2001), Decided on 14.12.2007, reported in 2008(1) ADJ 253. This Division Bench judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala and Hon'ble V.C. Misra, JJ. Notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 was issued for acquiring land, measuring 494919 bighas (309.060 Acre) in village Chhalera Banger, Noida, district Ghaziabad. Though the notification was dated 30.10.1987 but published in U.P. Gazette on 27.2.1988 and in the daily newspaper on 11.6.1989. Corrigendum was issued on 18.6.1989 and 24.6.1989, modifying Notification published in the Gazette on 27.2.1988. Thus relevant date of notification in that case was taken as 24.6.1989. Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of Act, 1894 was issued on 15.12.1989 and possession over the land was taken on various dates in the year 1990 and 1991. The Collector made award on 4.2.1992, determining compensation at the rate of Rs.43.64 per square yard on the basis of a sale deed dated 29.8.1987 though actual transaction was made therein at the rate of Rs.54.54 per square yard. The Collector however allowed 20% deduction in the said rate and thus compensation came to be determined at the rate of Rs.43.64 per square yard. Claimant/Tenure holders submitted application for Reference. The Reference Court relied on an agreement to sell dated 19.4.1989 and found market value of the land at the rate of Rs.297.50 per square yard. After applying deduction of 50%, it awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.148.75 per square yard. Claimants/Tenure holders approached this Court in several appeals under Section 54 of Act, 1894, contending that no deduction ought to have been applied to the compensation determined at the rate of Rs.297.50. The question up for consideration in Jagdish Chandra (supra) was "whether Reference Court was justified in making deduction of 50% or not". On behalf of claimants it was argued that under Section 23 of Act, 1894, there is no provision for deduction hence it could not have been applied. After examining Sections 23 and 24 of Act, 1894, the Court in paragraphs 17 and 18 held as under:

"17. Under the aforesaid provisions of section 23 and 24 of the Act, the criteria is laid down upon which the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land is to be determined. It is settled view that once the market value is valued on the basis of the sale (exemplar method) which has been found to be the best method for determination of compensation and nothing is revealed/prescribed by the Statute that the authority/reference Court is empowered to deduct any amount from the market value already determined, then in absence of any such provision of such deduction on any ground in the Statute, the deduction so made by the reference Court is patently illegal. On a query made by the Court from the learned Counsel for the parties that in absence of any provision for deduction provided at all in the Statute how could the concerned authority at the time of passing of the award or disposing of the reference deduct an amount towards development charges of the land in arriving at a correct market value for payment of just compensation of the land already acquired and possession taken over under the provisions of the Act from the erstwhile owner of the land whose all rights, titles and ownership over the land had come to an end, they could not forward any reply to the same.

18. On acquisition of the land the just compensation is paid to the owner of the land on the basis of correct market value of the property at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This market value is assessed as per the nearest sale deed exemplar in point of time and place. This compensation is paid on the basis of an award passed under Section 11 of the Act. It is noteworthy that once the land is acquired and possession has been taken by the acquiring body after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 and 6 is made the erstwhile owner looses all its rights, title, interest in the land vested in it and all of it stands vested with the acquiring/requiring body even though the symbolic acquisition is on paper. At this stage any deductions towards development/betterment charges are made at the time of awarding compensation to the erstwhile owner is not justiciable, more so since there is no statutory provision i.e. in the Act or Rules or Regulations etc. which provides for such deduction. After the acquiring/requiring body takes over the ownership of the land it is for it to develop or not develop the land and to what extent and all investments made for the same are to be borne by it and not by the erstwhile owner. It may, which it does charge from the new purchaser while selling of the land in plots and the price includes the betterment charges for the roads, parks etc. with interest. The concerned Authority and in the present case NOIDA once it charges from the new/subsequent purchaser all such charges cannot also be charged under the garb of deduction while awarding compensation to the erstwhile owner and gain double benefit. In such circumstances such deductions are unjustified and are required to be reversed. IN the present case the land which is earmarked for 'Park' no development of the land has been shown to have taken place nor any amount has been spent for the same then there cannot be any justification for deduction from the correct market price for the payment of compensation to the petitioners. The issues are decided accordingly."

43. Thus Jagdish Chandra and others vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA and another (Supra) the only question up for consideration was "whether 50% deduction to the rate determined by Reference Court was justified or not". The question "whether the rate of Rs.297.50 without deduction, determined by Reference Court was valid or not" was not an issue for consideration."

24. This decision in Jagdish Chandra then came to be referred in Ganeshi Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2008 (5) ADJ 306. It is also a Division Bench decision delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, JJ. Therein, the acquisition proceedings commenced in 1991. The appeals related to acquisition proceeding for acquiring land in village Chhalera Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad. Under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 notification dated 5.1.1991, published in the Gazette on 2.2.1991 was issued by State government, proposing to acquire land measuring area 790169 bighas (492.26 acres). The notification was published in the newspaper on 24.3.1991. Corrigendum was also issued on 4.4.1991. Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette on 7.1.1992. Possession was taken in parts on 30.3.1992, 7.8.1995 and 18.11.1995. SLAO made award determining compensation at the rate of Rs.125/per square yard but applying 12% deduction, it actually awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.110/per square yard. On Reference made under Section 18, Court determined compensation at the rate of Rs.297/per square yard but applying 25% deduction, it awarded compensation to Rs.222/per square yard. In this matter also, the question was "whether deduction of 25% by Reference Court was justified or not". It was pointed out that except one or two plots of claimants which were large in area, rest of the plots under acquisition were of smaller areas and smallest plot was only 0.12 bigha. Though it was admitted therein that circle rate cannot be considered as basis of compensation, but it was contended that the land areas of different size of land under different notifications are accumulated, can this formula of deduction due to largeness of land be applicable or not. Following decision in Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra), the Court held that deduction ought not to have been applied. Consequently appeals of land owners/claimants were allowed with similar rate of land as it was in Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra).

25. In both these matters, thus it is evident that on the basis of exemplar relied on by Reference Court, the market value was determined by Court at Rs. 297.50 and Rs.297/respectively per square yard. The Court attempted to reduce ultimate market value by applying 50% deduction in Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra) and 25% deduction in Ganeshi Singh (Supra), since former was an acquisition commenced in June, 1989 and the latter was an acquisition commenced on 2.2.1991. In both these matters, the Court held that deduction was not justified. The issue of rate as such was neither raised nor decided by this Court.

26. We may also notice that the decision in Ganeshi Singh (supra) has also been discussed in the same manner as we have noted above in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Surendra Singh (Supra). Both the decisions then were referred to in Raghuraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. & others decided on 29.05.2010 by a Division Bench constituting of Hon'ble P.C. Verma and Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh, JJ. (First Appeal No. 1056 of 1999) reported in 2010 (8) ADJ 334.

27. The aforesaid judgment related to Notification dated 24th March 1988 with respect to village Bhangel Begumpur. On behalf of the claimants, certain additional evidences filed were admitted by the Court. These additional evidences were in the form of Awards of Reference Courts in LAR Nos. 392/93, 173/96, 396/93 and 213/93. The first award related to acquisition of land vide Notification dated 30.11.1989 under Section 4 in respect of village Bhangel Begumpur. The other three awards related to Notifications dated 21.02.1991, 23.11.1989 and 27.2.1988 with respect to villages Morna, Sarfabad and Chhalera Bangar respectively. After referring to aforesaid awards, the Court followed award in LAR No.392/93 which was in respect of Notification dated 30.11.1989 and following earlier decisions in Jagdish Chandra and others vs. NOIDA and another (Supra) and Ganeshi Singh vs. State of U.P and others (supra), it held that rate of Rs.297/per Sq. Yard should be applied. We enquired from learned counsel for claimants in these appeals as to how rate determined in respect of acquisition notification of November, 1989 and onwards would be relevant to the present appeals, where acquisition notification is of March 1988 particularly, when in the present case, best exemplars relied by the claimants themselves have been followed and applied by Reference Court and is it possible to claimants to wriggle out from aforesaid documents, which are relied as evidences to support their claim. To this query, Shri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel could give no reply at all and submitted that whatever is the judgment of this Court, is being simply relied on by the claimants.

20. Then comes the decision in Khazan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others (First Appeal No. 564 of 1997 and other connected matter), decided on 11.10.2012 by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, the then Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, JJ. In this Bunch, acquisition Notifications of 1983, 1986, and 1988 were involved in respect of village Bhanger Begumpur and in respect of three other villages Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilapatabagh and Chhalera Bangar, acquisition Notifications of 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991 and 1992 were involved. The Court, following its earlier decisions in Raghuraj Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra), and Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra) held that the directions given in Raghuraj Singh's case will follow irrespective of the aforesaid acquisition proceedings of different areas and of different villages. The judgment is short and reproduced as under:-

"Most of the first appeals and cross appeals are related to the enhancement of compensation in respect of village Bhangel Begumpur. In one of such cases, i.e. First Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 (Raghuraj Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others), the Division Bench of this Court held that the compensation will be enhanced upto Rs.397/per square yard. The Division Bench following the principle laid down in the earlier order of a Division Bench presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J), has passed an order of enhancement of compensation reported in 2008 (1) ADJ, 253 (D.B.) (Jagdish Chandra & others Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development).

According to us, since the compensation has already been enhanced and no such challenge has been found with regard to such enhancement, which has been contended by Mr. Kamim Jailwas the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that similar compensation would be paid to the appellants whose cases are pending before this Court in relation to same village.

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 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).

Following the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J) has passed the order, the appeals and cross appeals are disposed of, accordingly. At the time of reversal of the decree, the Reference Court will take into account the deficiency in court fee, if any and pass an appropriate order at the time of final order.

However, substitution application/s, if any, pending in these appeals are also allowed, without imposing any cost. So far defective appeals are concerned, only defect/s was/ were deficiency of court fees, it is directed that same will be recovered/adjusted in accordance with rules, while preparing final decree by the department.

There will be no order as to costs." (emphasis added)

21. All these judgments have been referred in NOIDA Vs. Surendra Singh (supra) and thereafter in para 49 & 50 the Court has said as under:-

"49. We enquired from learned Counsel how rates determined in respect of Section 4(1) notification of 24.6.1989 shall apply to acquisition of 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988 but instead replying the same, they said that it is the judgment of this Court and beyond that they cannot say anything.

50. Thereafter, other judgments which have followed decision in Raghuraj Singh (Supra), Khazan Singh and others (Supra) and Ganeshi Singh and others (Supra) are as under:

(i) Amar Singh & Another v. State of U.P. & others, (First Appeal No.644 of 2012), Decided on 10.3.2014, by Hon'ble Krishna Murari and Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, JJ. Acquisition Notification under Section 4(1) is dated 15.2.1992 relating to village Geha Tilapatabagh. SLAO determined compensation at Rs.41.31 per square yard, while Reference Court determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/per square yard. The Court following Raghuraj Singh (Supra) determined compensation at the rate of Rs.297/per square yard.

(ii) Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Kashi Ram & Others, (First Appeal No. 910 of 2000 and other connected matters), Decided on 13.11.2014 by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Rajeev Sharma and Dinesh Gupta, JJ. Acquisition notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894 was issued on 12.10.1986 in relation to village Makanpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. SLAO allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/per square yard, while Reference Court allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.90/per square yard. This Court followed decision in Khazan Singh and others (supra) and Amar Singh & Another v. State of U.P. & others (supra) and allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.297/per square yard.

(iii) Tejpal v. State of U.P. and Others (First Appeal No. 49 of 2005 and other connected matters), decided on 10.3.2014 by Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Krishna Murari and Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, JJ. Acquisition Notification under Section 4 therein was issued on 2.2.1991 relating to village Chhalera Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. SLAO made award at the rate of Rs. 110/per square yard, while Reference Court determined compensation at the rate of Rs.297/per square yard, but allowing a deduction of 25% granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 222/per square yard. The Court following the decisions in Ganeshi Singh and others (supra) and Jagdish Chandra and others (supra), allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.340/per square yard by holding that since acquisition is of 1991, there should be an increment of 10% per annum."

22. The decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Kashi Ram and others (supra) which has also been relied upon by counsel for appellant has already been discussed and considered in NOIDA Vs. Surendra Singh (supra) and we are, therefore, of the view that the same would not land any support to the appellant.

23. The next decision cited is Rohtash Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another, First Appeal No. 1183 of 2004 and other 19 connected appeals decided vide judgment dated 19.05.2015. Here Court has relied on and followed the decision in NOIDA Vs. Surendra Singh (supra). As we have already discussed the aforesaid decision earlier hence appellant in the present case cannot be benefited by the aforesaid judgment. Last authority is Dheeraj Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2014 (14) SCC 127. The Court held that there should be a consistency in judicial determination. Identically situated land owners should be held entitled for the same compensation. The court in para 14 of the judgment said as under:-

"14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances"

24. We are already following exposition of law laid down in Dhreeraj Singh (supra) by following judgment of this Court in Asha Ram and another vs. UPAEVP (supra) wherein also the acquisition proceedings were same as are up for consideration in present appeal and the Court upheld award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard. The same compensation is being followed in the present appeal also in view of the aforesaid decision and following the reasons stated in Court's judgment dated 28.10.2015.

25. In view thereof, and for the reasons stated in judgment dated 28.10.2015, passed in First Appeal No. 827 of 2000, Asha Ram & Anr. vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parisahd & Anr., and following the said judgment, we dismiss this appeal.

Order Date :- 1.12.2015

Pradeep/-

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 267393 of 2015

In re:

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 388 of 2013

Appellant :- Pran Alias Kalia & Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- J.C.Bhardwaj, Yogesh Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- Awadhesh Tiwari,Madan Mohan

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.

Heard.