Allahabad High Court
Ankit Srivastava And Ors. vs State Of U.P.Throu.Collector Lucknow ... on 22 April, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22766
Court No. - 5
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1 of 2015
Appellant :- Ankit Srivastava And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Collector Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Jaiswal,Amit Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- Umesh Chandra Pandey,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Shri Gopal Krishna Pathak, learned Additional C.S.C. appearing on behalf of State - respondent No.1 and Shri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and award dated 15.09.2014 passed by Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika / Avas Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.3 of 1999, Harihar Nath substituted by Ankit Srivastava and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set forth by learned counsel for the appellants are that on 17.03.1979, a notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam, 1965") was issued. A declaration under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 was issued on 20.05.1980.
4. In pursuance thereof, on 18.03.1985, the possession of khasra Plot Nos. 422/2 and 416 were taken by the respondents.
5. On 29.03.1985, the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.1.88 per sq. ft.
6. Upon a reference being filed by the appellants, learned reference court, vide order impugned dated 15.09.2014, enhanced the rate of the acquired land to Rs.3.50 per sq. ft.
7. Being aggrieved with the said order, the instant appeal has been filed praying for enhancement of the rate of the acquired land to Rs.6 per sq. ft.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned reference court has referred to a piece of land which was acquired in the year 1969 in the same area for HAL and Indira Nagar Colony in which this Court had fixed the rate of land at the rate of Rs.3 per sq. ft., for enhancing the rate to Rs.3.50 per sq. ft.
9. The contention, in support of his argument for the rate to be enhanced to Rs.6 per sq. ft., is that once the land of the appellants was acquired in the year 1979, consequently, considering the lapse of 10 years which had lapsed between the year 1969 and 1979, in terms of the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Valliyammal and Another vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and Another 2011 (8) SCC 91 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that taking into consideration the escalation in land prices, the High Court should add 10% per annum escalation in the price specified in the sale deeds relied upon, for fixing market value of the acquired land.
10. It is contended that once the similar piece of land was acquired in the year 1969 and the rate has been fixed at Rs.3 per sq. ft., consequently, for the acquisition of the land of the appellants acquired in the year 1979, fixation of Rs.3.50 per sq. ft., as fixed by the learned reference court, is patently misconceived and the appellants are fully entitled for the rate to be enhanced in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Valliyammal (supra).
11. On the other hand, Shri G.C. Pathak as well as Shri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsels appearing for the respondents contend that the learned reference court had referred to two reference orders namely C56/2 & C58 in Re: Shakuntala Devi Sharma vs. State decided on 23.04.1997 and C56/7 i.e. Case No.20 of 1992 in Re: Shakuntala Devi Sharma vs. State decided on 23.04.1997, wherein the court had fixed a rate of 3.50 per sq. ft.
12. It is contended that the acquisition in the aforesaid reference was of the year 1979 and 1980 and the possession thereof was taken in the year 1983 and the award was declared on 29.03.1985 which was initially declared at 1.88 per square feet and thereafter, the reference court has fixed the rate of Rs.3.50 per sq. ft. which order had been affirmed by the High Court.
13. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, the arguments of Shri Pathak and Shri Pandey are that once the reference court was having similar matters before it per which the rate was fixed at Rs.3.50 per sq. ft. for the land which had been acquired in the year 1979 which is the case with regard to the appellants also, consequently, there was no occasion for the reference court to have initially placed reliance on the rates of the year 1969 and thereafter to have applied the principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofValliyammal (supra) to give a 10% escalation every year and, thus, the order of the learned reference court does not require any interference.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
15. From a perusal of record, it emerges that for the land of the appellants, a notification under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 was issued on 17.03.1979 and the declaration under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 was made on 20.05.1980. The possession was taken on 18.03.1985. The declaration award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 29.03.1985 at the rate of Rs.1.88 per sq. ft. and thereafter, the reference court has enhanced it to Rs.3.50 per sq. ft. vide the order impugned dated 15.09.2014.
16. The appellants seeking enhancement have filed the instant appeal.
17. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofValliyammal (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that considering the escalation in land prices, the High Courts should add 10% per annum escalation in the price specified in the sale deeds relied upon for fixing market value.
18. There cannot be any dispute to the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Valliyammal (supra).
19. In the instant case, the appellants want an increase of a rate which was fixed for an acquisition of the year 1969 by following the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Valliyammal (supra).
20. On the other hand, learned reference court has placed reliance on similar awards which pertain to an acquisition of the year 1979 and in which the amount of Rs.3.50 per square feet, as awarded by reference court, has been affirmed by the High Court.
21. Once the learned reference court was already having the similar awards for similar pieces of land acquired in the same year as the appellants which have been affirmed by the High Court and which pertain to the same acquisition as made in the year 1979, consequently, placing reliance on any earlier acquisition that might have been made for the similar pieces of land and then to have applied the principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofValliyammal (supra) is clearly not countenanced in the eyes of law.
22. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out.
23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
24. The trial court records be returned back.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025
S. Shivhare
