Mahesh Chand vs State Of Utter Pradesh And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9256 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mahesh Chand vs State Of Utter Pradesh And Another on 27 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:149686
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
FIRST APPEAL No. - 586 of 1988
 
Court No. - 35
 
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

In Re: Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 20.

Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is allowed. Additional evidence filed in this appeal by the appellant is taken on record.

In Re : Civil Misc. Application No.353814 of 2016.

Application is allowed. The court fees filed by the appellant is taken on record.

In Re : Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 224139 of 2006.

Substitution application is allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the memo of appeal, accordingly.

Order on Appeal.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the land owner challenging the award and decree dated 17.02.1988 passed by Sri D.K. Agrawal, District Judge, Ghaziabad in LAR No. 322 of 1977 (Mahesh Chand Vs. State), whereby the land of village Makhanpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad was acquired by the P.W.D. for construction of Ghaziabad bypass, and the compensation awarded by the Collector vide its award dated 04.11.1974 at the rate of Rs.1.81 square yard has been affirmed, but the solatium has been enhanced from 15% to 30%.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land of village Makhanpur was acquired by the P.W.D. for construction of Ghaziabad bypass in the year 1972 and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11.03.1972, the possession of the acquired land was taken on 30.03.1972 and the award of the Collector was made on 04.11.1974, whereby only a meager compensation @ Rs.1.81 per square yard along with solatium at the rate of 15%, was awarded to the land owner, against which, a reference was made by the land owners claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per bigha, but the reference court erroneously did not grant any enhancement for the land acquired, but only enhanced the solatium from 15% to 30%.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that for acquiring land situated in village Jatwara Kalan, District Ghaziabad, notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1962, a compensation of Rs. 85/- per square yard has been awarded by this Court, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court. As such, the appellant is also entitled to at least that much compensation, because the appellant's land was acquired ten years later in the year 1972 which is also situated near Delhi, whereas the land acquired in the year 1962, was located in District Ghaziabad.

4. He further submitted that the appellant has filed additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in this appeal, including relevant decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, as well as Google Map. This evidence proves that the distance between the land acquired in the year 1962 and the land acquired in the year 1972 is only about 13 km. He also contended that the appellant's land is situated near Delhi, whereas the land acquired in the year 1962 was located in Ghaziabad. He further submitted that the appellant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 100/- per square yard, but he is limiting his claim to Rs. 85/- per square yard, in view of the decision dated 05.02.1993 of this Court in First Appeal No.288 of 1985, Anoop Singh & others Vs. State of U.P.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the reference court has rightly refused to enhance the compensation because the acquired land was undeveloped and, therefore, it could not have awarded the same rate of compensation, as for the land acquired in the year 1962. He further submitted that there is no similarity between the appellant's acquired land and the land acquired in the year 1962, in terms of location and plot size. Therefore, the compensation paid by this Court in the case of Anoop Singh, which was affirmed by the Apex Court, cannot be granted to the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the appellant is not entitled to other statutory benefits available under the Act. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is apparent that in the instant case, the acquired land is situated in village Makhanpur, Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad. The land was acquired by P.W.D. for the construction of the Ghaziabad bypass. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11.03.1972. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 30.03.1972, and the Collector's award was made on 04.11.1974, granting a meager compensation of only Rs. 1.81 per square yard to the landowner.

8. It is also apparent that the landowners had approached the reference court for an enhancement of the compensation, for the acquired land. Their claim was partially dismissed by the impugned award and decree dated 17.02.1988, which only enhanced the solatium from 15% to 30%, but did not increase the compensation for the acquired land.

9. It is evident that previously in the year 1962, land situated in village Jatwara Kalan, District Ghaziabad, was acquired. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act regarding this acquisition was issued on 18.08.1962. Possession of the land was taken on 22.12.1964, and the award of the Collector was made on 26.06.1967, granting compensation of Rs. 2/- per square yard. The reference court enhanced this to Rs. 40/- per square yard. The landowner, Anoop Singh, challenged this by filing First Appeal No. 288 of 1985 before this Court, which was decided by an order dated 05.02.1993, by which the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 85/- per square yard.

10. The judgment of this Court was challenged by the Ghaziabad Development Authority before the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 1996 along with connected Appeal No. 5102 of 1996, Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Anoop Singh & others, which were disposed of by an order dated 23.01.2003, which upheld the compensation awarded by the High Court, but disallowed the additional compensation granted under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The Apex Court specifically rejected the Development Authority's contention that the landowners were only entitled to compensation according to the old Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, holding that if the award of the reference court was made after 30.04.1982, the landowners are not bound by the previous Section 25 of the Act and are entitled to fair compensation.

11. It was further held by the Apex Court that the land owners are also entitled for the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% but since the possession of the land was taken prior to the introduction of amending Bill in Parliament on 30.04.1982, as such, the land owners were held not entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% per anum under Section 23(1A) of the Act.

12. It is apparent that for the land acquired in the year 1962, which is situated in District Ghaziabad and approximately 13 km away from the appellant's acquired land, a compensation of Rs. 85/- per square yard has been awarded by this Court, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court. It is also apparent that the appellant's acquired land is situated in close proximity to Delhi and was acquired in the year 1972, almost ten years after the Ghaziabad land. As such, the appellant is entitled to more compensation than what was awarded for the land acquired in the year 1962. However, the appellant is only claiming compensation at the same rate that this Court awarded for the land acquired in the year 1962.

13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is also entitled to at least the same amount of compensation that was awarded for the land acquired in the year 1962, pertaining to village Jatwara Kalan of District Ghaziabad. That Ghaziabad land had more disadvantages and was far from Delhi, compared to the land acquired in the year 1972, which is situated near Delhi.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.85/- per square yard, enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% and enhanced interest under Section 28 of the Act. The appellant is not entitled to additional compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the Act, because his land was acquired much prior to 30.04.1982 when the amending Bill (Act 68 of 1984) was introduced in the Parliament.

15. This appeal was filed on 21.5.1988 but subsequently the valuation of the appeal was enhanced and the deficiency of the court fees was made good on 19.11.2016, as such, the appellant is not entitled to get any statutory interest for the above mentioned period between 21.5.1988 to 19.11.2016.

16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

17. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.

August 27, 2025

Gaurav