Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ashfaq Husain Alias Nauku on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 105 of 1982
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ashfaq Husain Alias Nauku
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- L.P.Shukla
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present first appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the order passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Raebareli dated 1.7.1982 whereby the claimant has been held to be entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,409.37 P. on account of the acquisition of his land situated at plot No.s 155 area 6 biswa, 16 biswansis, 156 area 12 biswa 5 biswansis, 164 area 6 biawa 10 biswansis, 165 area 7 biswa, 10 biswansis totaling to 1 bigha 15 biswa and 1 Biswansis. The said land was acquired by means of notification dated 14.6.1974 which was published on 22.6.1974. The award was computed on the basis of various belts. The first belt of plots falling within 100 yards were granted compensation at the rate of Rs.17500 per bigha and the plots situated beyond 100 yards in the second row were granted compensation at the rate of Rs.11666.67 per bigha. The land of the claimants fell on the second category and, hence compensation was determined as 43, 812.50. He was further awarded solatium of Rs.6596.87 at the rate of 15 percent and Rs.7099.02 were given as interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Hence, the total compensation of Rs.50409.37 was awarded to the claimants.
3. The claimant had filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming that the land was centrally situated and it because of all round development i.e. close to the railway station, bus station, courts, markets, government offices etc. and having the potential residential houses being constructed and, hence was entitled to higher rate of compensation. In support of his submission the claimant had filed various sale deeds as exemplars to indicate that similarly situated land was given higher compensation.
4. The revisional court was not satisfied by the claim made by the claimants. The claimant had further contested the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.27 of 1979 decided on 28.3.1980 where similarly land was acquired at the same point of time and higher rate of compensation was awarded but the same was also disbelieved by the revisional court as the land was part of the Civil Lines area of Raebareli and was not comparable to the land of the petitioner.
5. After considering the entire conspectuses of the case the revisional court was of the view that the land acquired for the scheme in question has the market value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha as it belonged to first belt of the land and fixed Rs.25,000/- per bigha for second belt of land which was adequate compensation and accordingly the claim of the petitioner was marginally enhanced to Rs.50,409.37 P. Against the aforesaid judgment and order the present first appeal has been preferred.
6. Learned Standing counsel at the outset has submitted that the revisional court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case including various sale deeds filed by the claimants and also the orders passed in Land Acquisition Case No.27 of 1979 where the land was acquired in nearby places. It is only after due consideration of the entire conspectus of the facts that a limited enhancement has been allowed in favour of the claimants. No other ground was urged by the Standing counsel to assail the impugned order passed by the revisional court.
7. This Court has also gone through the record as well as the judgment of the revisional court. It is noticed that the revisional court has examined the matter in detail and all the arguments and material on record were duly considered and after due consideration the revisional court has fixed the price of the land at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per bigha and the solatium at the rate of 15 per cent. It is further noticed that no interim order was granted by this Court.
8. In light of the above, this Court does not find any error in the order of the IInd Additional District Judge and hence no interference is required by this Court in the matter. The first appeal is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. In case, the compensation has not been paid to the respondents, the same be released expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority.
Order Date :- 8.2.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
