Allahabad High Court
U.P. Stae Industrial Development ... vs Chowdhary Rohit And Others on 1 May, 2025
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68529
Court No. - 36
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1156 of 2004
Appellant :- U.P. Stae Industrial Development Corporation
Respondent :- Chowdhary Rohit And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Agarwal,J.P. Singh
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal and Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents as well as perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 318 of 2001 (UPSIDC Ltd. v. Gir Raj Singh and others), decided on 09.11.2017. The order dated 09.11.2017 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Order on the First Appeal and the Cross Appeal:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Subhash Agarwal holding brief for Shri Pankaj Agarwal for the respondents.
Learned counsel for parties are ad idem that the issues raised in this appeal shall stand governed by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Smt Ram Rakhi and others which came to be decided on 23 April 2015.
It becomes relevant note that in the said appeal, the judgment of the reference court in LAR No. 6 of 1997 determining the market value of land for the purposes of compensation at Rs.80/- per sq. yard was upheld.
The instant appeal of the Corporation is directed against the judgment of the reference court wherein compensation has been computed to be Rs.60/- per sq. yard.
In view thereof and in light of the reasons recorded by the Division Bench in First Appeal No. 613 of 2005, the Court finds no merit in this appeal which shall stand consequently dismissed.
Insofar as the cross appeal of the land holder is concerned, the Court notes that the claim in the said cross appeal is restricted to Rs.70/- per sq. yard. Learned counsel for the land holders has, on the other hand, rightly placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Maharunnisa and another Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur , which read thus:-
" Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as other materials on record.
2. The only question that needs to be decided is whether the appellants can be deprived of their rightful claim on technical ground for want of requisite court fee without affording them an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee within a reasonable time and deny the benefit of enhanced compensation.
3. In the impugned judgment, the High Court made the following directions:
"For the reasons stated in the judgment passed in MFAs Nos. 3936, 3939 and 3943 of 2003 by this Court along with cross-objections disposed of by a common judgment dated 8-9-2006 though this Court has fixed the market value in the aforesaid cases at Rs 23 per square feet we fix the market value of the lands acquired in these cases at Rs 20 per square feet as the owners have restricted their claim only to that extent. The owners are entitled for other statutory benefits and interest payable under the provisions of the LA Act."
From the above, it is clear that the amount of compensation was determined at Rs 23 per square feet by the High Court in the impugned judgment but the appellants were directed to be paid at the rate of Rs 20 per square feet as the appellants had restricted their claim at the rate of Rs 20 square feet in respect of the lands acquired by the respondent.
4. In a recent decision of this Court in Chandrashekhar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2009 14 SCC 441, we have set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed it to consider payment of compensation at the rate determined by the High Court in that judgment but not directed to be paid because of non-payment of court fee by the appellant claimants.
5. In view of Chandrashekhar case referred to hereinabove, we are, therefore, of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court must be set aside in part. As determined by the High Court in the impugned judgment, we also fix the market value of the acquired land of the appellants at Rs 23 per square feet. However, the rest of the decision of the High Court is affirmed.
6. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall be directed to be paid to the appellants by the High Court if the appellants deposit the requisite court fee on the aforesaid enhanced amount within four months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. In the event, the requisite court fee, as directed above, is not paid within the time specified hereinabove, the appeals shall stand dismissed.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for decision after giving a hearing to the parties. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs."
In view thereof, relief to the land holder cannot be restricted to the claim in appeal. However, the land holder would have to pay additional court fee which will be computed by the Registry afresh.
Accordingly and in view of the decision noted hereinabove, the cross appeal is allowed. The land holders shall in consequence be entitled to compensation @ Rs.80/- per sq. yard. This additional compensation however, shall not be released in their favour till they submit proof before the appropriate authority of having made good the additional court fee as may be required in terms of the report of the Registry to be drawn up pursuant to the aforesaid direction."
3. In view of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the present First Appeal is dismissed and the Cross Appeal stands allowed in terms of the order dated 09.11.2017.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
Krishna*
