Kamla Shankar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2321 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 

 
[Reserved]
 

 

 
In Chamber
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6258 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Kamla Shankar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2522 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Gauri Shankar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Deo Shukla,Amit Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66731 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Laldei
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunal Ravi Singh,Ashutosh Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3048 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Mohd. Hanif
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunal Ravi Singh,Ashutosh Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3049 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Arjun Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunal Ravi Singh,Ashutosh Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

1. By this bunch of writ petitions, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders dated 15.9.2015, 01.10.2015, 08.10.2015 and 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Bhadohi, Gyanpur in five different compensation proceeding under the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.10.1999 passed in case of ''Durga Prasad and others Vs. State of U.P. and Others'1. By the impugned orders, the learned District Judge has fixed the compensation payable to the petitioners for their land taken without following the due process of law.

2. Brief facts of the case are that irrigation department of the State of U.P. required some land to develop a canal. The State Government illegally occupied the land of petitioners and used it for the same. The illegal occupation by the State Government was made between the year 1978 and 1980. The notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 18942 and the due process of law was not followed by the State authorities. Subsequently on 12.04.1984 and 18.01.1986 notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1984 were issued with regard to the lands of other villagers that was required for the same canal. Petitioners were also not provided any fair compensation for the lands which were unauthorizedly occupied. Aggrieved by the illegal act of the State, some of the land owners filed a writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32729 of 1998; ''Durga Prasad and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others' before this Court. The Court directed a C.B.I. inquiry in the matter. In the report submitted by C.B.I. on 15.09.1999, large number of irregularities were pointed out. This Court disposed of the petition finally by its judgment dated 14.10.1999. Paragraph-21 and 22 of the said judgment containing the direction of the Court reads:-

"21. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, the relief for them is spelled out as under:

A copy of this order shall be placed before the District Judge, Allahabad. There are no land acquisition proceedings which have been shown by the respondents to the Court. There is no award. The District Judge, in any case, is an authority referred to under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State respondents, that is, the official concerned of the revenue shall on or before 15 November, 1999, file a statement, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, before the District Judge, Allahabad, along with the money for deposit. The State respondents will file a calculation before the District Judge, in reference to the strict criteria provided for calculating compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 This will mean the value of the land, that is, the market value. The petitioners will have an opportunity to object to the calculations which will be filed by the State respondents. Thereafter, the District Judge, Allahabad, will examine the matter and modulate the compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The District Judge, Allahabad, will take into account the other factors for computing compensation as are prescribed under the Act, like solatium, interest, etc. The amount which will be worked out by the District Judge, Allahabad, as these matters have seen long delay, shall be the final amount and he will require the State Government to deposit this amount. When the final compensation is being computed by the District Judge, Allahabad, he will require the balance amount, if any, to be deposited in his Court within thirty days, of its being indicated. If the need so arises, the decision of the District Judge shall be executed as a decree.

22. In so far as other agriculturists are concerned, these are spread out in five districts. The same modalities will be adopted by the District Judges, concerned. The agriculturists have been identified in the CBI report and the State respondents are possessed of sufficient information on lands used, occupied and possessed by the State for the public project, aforesaid. Likewise, the State respondents shall file a calculation chart with respect to these agriculturists before the District Judges, concerned, on or before 1 December, 1999 along with the money as a deposit. Likewise, as indicated (to District Judge, Allahabad), the other concerned District Judges, shall work out the final amount towards compensation and require the State Government to deposit it by indicating the balance, if any, within thirty days. The decision of the District Judges, concerned shall be executed as a decree."

3. Thus, the Court required the District Judges concerned to decide the claim of the persons which were decided and are now under challenge in the present writ petitions before this Court.

4. Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, though, this Court directed by its judgment dated 14.10.1999 to decide the matter within a period of 30 days, however, the claims of the petitioners could only be decided on 15.09.2005 and thereafter. The said delay occurred on account of delay on part of State in submitting the details of the compensation to the Court to which petitioners were, as per State, entitled. Petitioners submitted their objections to the compensation proposed by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that primary objection to the compensation fixed is that the same is decided on the basis of values of lands applicable between the year 1978-1980, i.e., when the actual possession of the land was taken. The value of the land at that time was abnormally low. The compensation calculated, thus, is excessively meager. Thus, the final compensation total for about a few thousand only along with interest.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment passed in case of ''Bhimandas Ambwani v. Delhi Power Co. Ltd.3' and claims that the compensation should be fixed on the date of the judgment of this Court in Durga Prasad case (supra), when the Court issued directions for compensation. He further submits that the judgment of this Court is dated 14.10.1999, but, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners have prayed for grant of compensation w.e.f. 12.05.1984 and 18.01.1986, i.e,. the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 for the relevant area. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same is made for the reason that rest of the villagers also got compensation from the said dates.

6. Learned Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection that the petitioners have an alternative remedy to file an appeal as the compensation would amount to a decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge. He further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the compensation is rightly fixed as the same is from the date, the possession of the land is taken.

7. On the issue of alternative remedy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are passed under the directions of this Court and, therefore, this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can also look into it and correct the same. He further submits that he is not raising any factual controversy and is only claiming parity with other land owners who are paid compensation on the basis of the rates prevailing on the date notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published along with solatium & interest as provided by the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners, in fact, are giving away their claim that they may be provided compensation from the date of judgment of Durga Prasad case (supra) as it is held in Bhimandas (supra) case.

8. The petitioners have been deprived of their lands for more than four decades. These are very old cases and more than a generation has passed, therefore, the matter required to be brought to its logical end as expeditiously as possible. There is also no factual controversy involved in the present cases. Even otherwise, the judgment of learned Additional District Judge is under the orders of this Court and not strictly under the Act of 1894. Therefore, the objection of alternative remedy raised by the State is held to be not maintainable and is rejected.

9. The judgment of this Court in Durga Prasad case (supra) is silent regarding the date on the basis of which the compensation is to be calculated. Under the Act of 1894, the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is the relevant date for computing the compensation. The Supreme Court in ''Bhimandas Ambwani case (supra) in paragraph 14 has held :-

"14. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in Tukaram case [(2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] and thus, entitled for restoration of possession of the land in dispute. However, considering the fact that the possession of the land was taken over about half a century ago and stood completely developed as Ms Ahlawat, learned counsel has submitted that a full-fledged residential colony of the employees of DESU has been constructed thereon, therefore, it would be difficult for Respondent 1 to restore the possession. In such a fact situation, the only option left out to the respondents is to make the award treating Section 4 notification as, on this date i.e. 12-2-2013 and we direct the Land Acquisition Collector to make the award after hearing the parties within a period of four months from today. For that purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector c/o the Deputy Commissioner, South M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi on 26-2-2013. The appellants is at liberty to file a reference under Section 18 of the Act and to pursue the remedies available to him under the Act. Needless to say that the appellants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits."

10. As per Bhimandas (supra) case, when the land is not acquired as per the provisions of law and a long period has elapsed, it is the date of judgment of the Court, on the basis of which the compensation should be fixed. The petitioners have fairly conceded that they would sufficiently be compensated in case they are treated at par with other villagers and granted compensation from the date when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 with regard to other villagers was issued and not the later date of the judgment. The petitioners could have raised a technical argument for asking compensation on the basis of judgment of Bhimandas (supra) case, but have played fairly.

11. I find force in fair submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. Though, rest of the villagers have already got their compensation but petitioners are still fighting for their claim. The amount of compensation granted to the petitioners, as noted above, is abnormally low. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners on the basis of market value of the land prevailing on the date on which the notification for compulsory acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 for the relevant villages was issued. Along with the same, as directed by this Court in Durga Prasad case (supra), the petitioners shall also be entitled for solatium, interest etc. calculated accordingly from the same date. The respondents are directed to calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid directions and pay the same to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. The judgments dated 15.09.2015, 01.10.2015, 08.10.2015 and 20.04.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur stand modified as per above.

12. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions stand allowed.

Order Date :-23.01.2023

Arti/-

[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]