Allahabad High Court
Raebareli Development Authority vs Jagdish Prasad on 13 May, 2024
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36701
Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 158 of 2003
Appellant :- Raebareli Development Authority
Respondent :- Jagdish Prasad
Counsel for Appellant :- V.R.Singh,A.K.Chaturvedi,Dwijendra Mishra,Shikhar Anand
Counsel for Respondent :- G.S.Nigam,Govind Saran Nigam
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no.1.
The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 assailing the award passed by the reference court dated 28.01.1993 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in Reference Case No.30 of 1991.
Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submited that in respect of the instant scheme in question which relates to 'Malikmau Avasiya Vistar Yojna' wherein the Collector had made an award, the said award was challenged by number of tenure holders by filing references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court decided number of references relating to the said scheme and one of the said judgments was further assailed by the Raebareli Development Authority before this Court by means of First Appeal No.77 of 1994 (Raebareli Development Authority Vs. Amrit Lal). The said appeal came to be dismissed by means of order dated 23.01.2023 and the said order reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for appellant.
2. No one appears on behalf of respondents.
3. The appeal has been preferred against the order and award dated 23.12.1992 passed by District Judge Raebareli whereby he has allowed the reference preferred by the respondents for enhancement of compensation with regard to land of respondent No. 1 which was acquired by the State.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that three plots of land, namely, Plot No. 1069 C area 0.2500 hectare, plot No. 1081 area 0.2000 hectare and plot No. 2791/1152 are 0.3500 hectare situated at village Ahmadpur Nazul, Paragana, Tahsil and District Raebareli were acquired by the State Government for making of a residential colony and on the said land respondent No. 1 had half of her share. The said land was acquired and the prescribed authority has fixed the compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- per bigha which comes out to Rs. 1000/- per biswa.
5. The respondent No. 1 was of the considered view that the compensation granted by the Prescribed Authority was inadequate, preferred a revision before the District Judge which has been decided by the impugned judgment dated 23.12.1992.
6. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that order of the District Judge needs interference considering the fact that the same is not based on any material and merely on conjunctures the amount of compensation has been enhanced. No other ground was raised by the appellant while arguing the said case.
7. This Court has perused the lower court record and heard learned counsel for appellant.
8. It is noticed that in the revision, the appellant has adduced numerous sale deeds of nearby land. The sale deeds executed by Chand Kumar Singh, Yusuf, Chandra Pal, Duli Chand, Radhey, Shital Din and Rameshwar were adduced which indicted that much higher amount was awarded as compensation.
9. Learned District Judge was of the considered view that the valuation of the said land as mentioned in the sales deeds adduced by the respondent pertain to smaller plots which admittedly fetched a higher rate while plot of the respondents is much large area and consequently such higher rates could not be granted to him. The respondent had further adduced material before the District Judge that District Magistrate himself had acquired the land @ Rs. 140/- per sq. meter with regard to the residential land and Rs. 180/- per sq. meter for commercial land and accordingly he submitted that petitioner was entitled to at-least Rs. 14/- per sq. ft as compensation with regard to the said land. After considering the entire matter, the District Judge has computed the compensation at a modest amount of Rs. 3 per sq. ft. and accordingly held that respondent would be entitled to Rs. 4085/- per biswa and reducing the development charges of the said land, he has fixed the rate at @ Rs. 3268/- per biswa. Further, addition on account of solatium an interest has been granted.
10. I have considered the material on record and after going the various sale deeds adduced by the respondent, it is noticed that a much lower figure has been accepted by the District Judge to be granted as compensation which cannot in any essence of the mater which held to be excessive or without any basis.
11. This Court after examining the record does not find that the order of District Magistrate require interference and also that he has adequately considered the exemplar and sale deeds of nearby lands while interfering with the order of the Special Land Officer, this Court does not find any infirmity in the same, accordingly, the first appeal is dismissed.
12. In case amount has not been disbursed to the respondent, the same shall be disbursed expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned."
The grounds taken by the appellant in the instant appeal are almost identical to the one raised by the appellant in First Appeal No.77 of 1994. The award made by the reference court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 enhancing the compensation to the rate of Rs.3268/- per biswa has been affirmed by this Court in First Appeal No.77 of 1994 and it has attained finality. Since the rate of enhancement has attained finality and the respondent herein has also been given the same enhanced rate and the grounds upon which challenge had been laid did not find favour in the First Appeal No.77 of 1994 by this Court thus for all the said reasons this appeal too is liable to fail.
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal also stands dismissed in light of the judgment dated 23.01.2023 passed in First Appeal No.77 of 1994 and it has been followed by this Court in First Appeal No.1 of 1996. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
ank
