Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Nisar Husain on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53533
Court No. - 19
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 38 of 1992
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Nisar Husain
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- R.N.Mishra,Jagdish Singh,Syed Ajaz Haider Rizvi
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1.Heard Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State whereas none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Raebareli dated 06.05.1988 in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court had enhanced the rates while granting the compensation illegally and has ignored that the exemplars which were noticed by the Reference Court were wholly irrelevant and did not relate to the land in question to determine the issue of compensation and as such the award dated 06th May, 1988 deserves to be set aside.
4. Having perused the material on record, this Court finds that a large number of cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 covered by the same notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as relating to the present respondents were made the subject matter and all such cases were clubbed and decided by the Reference Court on different dates, the details of which has been mentioned in the memo of appeal filed by the State.
5. The record further indicates that there were other appeals filed by the State assailing the same award wherein similar rates have been granted to the tenure holders.
6. This Court further finds that another First Appeal bearing No. 40 of 1992 (State of U.P. Vs. Guru Prasad) which was also decided by the Tribunal on 05.05.1988 wherein the same Tribunal had enhanced the compensation came to be contested and the said appeal was dismissed on merits by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.01.2004 affirming the award. The relevant portion of the order passed in First Appeal No. 40 of 1992 read as under:-
"Under the impugned award given by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court held that the land owner is entitled to Rs. 30,000/- per bigha as the value of the land acquired and that comes to Rs. 1500/- per biswa.
Learned Trial Court discussed at length the location of the land in question and also the compensation and other circumstances and in my considered opinion the amount awarded by the learned court below is neither excessive nor exaggerated. It has been given on the market value of the land in question. There is no question of law involved in this appeal which is dismissed. The amount not already paid shall be paid to the land owner within thee months. "
7. Since a similar appeal raising the same grounds in respect of the same contagious land which was the subject matter of the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Tribunal and on the same grounds, the appeal No. 40 of 1992 was filed which has been dismissed on merits, consequently, the said order confirming the enhancement cannot be interfered with as the same would have a binding effect on this appeal as well.
8. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not indicate any further ground nor could indicate as to how the aforesaid case is different to the instant case, accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal also fails in light of the order passed in First Appeal No. 40 of 1992. The award passed by the Reference Court dated 06.05.1988 stands affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The records of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Asheesh
