Allahabad High Court
Roop Narain And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Judgment Reserved on 29.08.2025
Judgment Delivered on 07.10.2025.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176811
Court No. - 38
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 382 of 2016
Appellant :- Roop Narain And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar,Hari Shanker Tripathi,M.P. Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Sushil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the land owner challenging the award and decree dated 08.08.2007 passed by the Court of Shri B.D.Verma, Special Judge E.C. Act, Mirzapur in L.A.R. No.9 of 1996, Roop Narain(Deceased) through LR's and others vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby for the land acquired in Village Natwa, Pargana and Tehsil Kantit, District Mirzapur for constructing a 220 KV sub-station of the U.P. State Electricity Board, compensation at the rate of Rs. 26,624/- per bigha, awarded by the Collector vide award dated 28.09.1993 was upheld.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that for constructing a 220 KV sub-station of the U.P. State Electricity Board, 30.340 acres land was acquired in Village Natwa, Pargana and Tehsil Kantit, District Mirzapur. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 19.03.1991, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made on 27.09.1991, the possession of the acquired land was taken on 03.02.1993, the award of the Collector was made on 28.09.1993.
3. The appellants land measuring 6 bigha 2 biswa was acquired for which he was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 26,624/- per bigha, for a well situated on the land, he was paid compensation of Rs.3,076/-, for a house standing on the acquired land, he was paid compensation of Rs. 13,600/- and for three mango and one aonla tree standing on the acquired land, he was paid compensation of Rs. 10,680/-, in all the appellant was paid compensation of Rs. 2,49,919.92 paise for his acquired land. Besides this, the appellant was also paid statutory benefits i.e. solatium at the rate of 30%, additional compensation at the rate of 12 % per annum and statutory interest admissible under the Act.
4. Before the Collector there were 21 exemplars, which were executed within three years prior to the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. The Collector determined the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of exemplar dated 21.03.1988, regarding land no. 204, wherein an area of 0-6-0 bigha having circle rate of Rs.1.25 which was executed by Jhaggad son of Sheetal in favour of Prem Nath Yadav. The Collector opined that this exemplar reflected the true market value of the acquired land because the land sold in the exemplar and the acquired land were proximate, the quality of soil was similar and also the acquired land was low-lying. On the basis of this exemplar, compensation at the rate of ₹ 58,666/- per bigha for Pallo 1 land was determined. Since, the land was degraded because a brick kiln was situated on it, hence, the collector made deduction of 25% to 35% from the above compensation. Besides that, the well, house and fruit trees were assessed separately. Aggrieved against the collector's award, the land owner preferred a reference.
5. Before the reference court Mulloor was examined as PW-1, appellant Roop Narain was examined as PW-2, Anand Prasad Ameen was examined as PW-3. PW-1 and PW-2 proved (1) exemplar dated 20.04.1988, 0-4-0 bigha area, consideration of Rs. 1,36,500/-, (2) exemplar dated 23.11.1988, 0-2-0 bigha consideration of Rs. 50,000/-, (3) exemplar dated 24.01.1991, 0-4-10 bigha consideration of Rs. 1,12,500/-.
6. The respondents examined DW-1 Saiyad Rahat Raza, Ameen and DW-2, Lalai Ram.
7. The reference court vide impugned award and decree rejected the claim of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the exemplars relied on by the claimant are not relevant because they are situated adjoining to a road and in some of the plots, office have been constructed and also the land of those exemplars was not degraded. The reference court concluded that the land owner has not produced the khasra of the acquired land, as such, it was not known whether the acquired land was fertile agricultural land, and was plane. The reference court opined that the acquired land was low-lying, uneven and degraded because soil was dug out for manufacturing bricks in a brick kiln, which was situated nearby. The reference court concluded that the land owner was not entitled to enhanced compensation, aggrieved against which, the land owner is in appeal before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the land owner/appellant submitted that the land owner had adduced three exemplars dated 20.04.1988, 23.11.1988 and 24.01.1991, before the reference court, which pertained to land measuring 4 biswa, 2 biswa, 4 biswa 10 biswansi, respectively, as per which, land was sold for consideration of Rs.1,36,500/-, 50,000/-, 1,12,500/-, according to which the transaction took place at the rate of Rs. 34,125/-, 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- per biswa but the Collector has only awarded compensation @ Rs.26,624/- per bigha, which is wholly inadequate.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that appellants land situated in 7 gatas was acquired, which was fertile plane land, which was irrigated, as such, there was no evidence on record to presume that brick kiln was operated on the acquired land , which was degraded and low lying.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was entitled to get the highest market value, on which, the land was sold proximate to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, but the Collector has only awarded compensation on the basis of exemplar dated 21.03.1988, which denotes the lowest price.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that a well, house and four fruit bearing trees were also situated on the acquired land for which inadequate compensation was paid by the Collector.
12. Per contra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Collector has determined the correct amount of compensation on the basis of exemplar dated 21.03.1988. Learned counsel further submitted that the acquired land was degraded, low lying, barren and infertile regarding which compensation cannot be determined on the basis of exemplars dated 20.04.1988, 23.11.1988 and 24.01.1991.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that the above referred exemplars were of very small area whereas, the acquired land of the appellant was 6 bigha 2 biswa, which was not at all comparable with the land transaction that took place in the above mentioned exemplars, as such, the above referred exemplars cannot be the basis for awarding enhanced compensation to the appellant.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been awarded correct amount of compensation for a well, house and fruit trees situated on his land because no contrary evidence was adduced by the land owner.
15. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the burden lies upon the appellant to prove the nature of the acquired land, which he failed to prove because the certified copy of the khasra was not produced by the appellant before the reference court or the Collector, as such, there was no contrary evidence to arrive at a conclusion that no brick kiln was situated on the acquired land. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is merit less and be dismissed.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
17. On the basis of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following issues arise for determination before this Court:-
(i) Whether the appellant was entitled to get compensation for his acquired land on the basis of highest market value reflected in the exemplar?
(ii) Whether the acquired land of the appellant was degraded, barren, low lying and un-irrigated ?
(iii) Whether the reference court has awarded the correct amount of compensation to the appellant for his acquired land?
18. The Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust(Registered), Faridkot and Others vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 5 SCC 432, while considering the applicability of exemplars in awarding compensation in land acquisition cases, held as under:-
14. As pointed out above, the Reference Court failed to take note of the highest exemplar, namely, the sale transaction under Ext. A-61 dated 22-7-1977. In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras [(1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC)] . In this case, this Court has held thus : (MLJ pp. 46-47)
where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."
15. In State of Punjab v. Hans Raj [(1994) 5 SCC 734] this Court has held that method of working out the average price paid under different sale transactions is not proper and that one should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. This Court further held that the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands are the real basis to determine the market value.
16. This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa [(2010) 13 SCC 710 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 788] , after relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur and Hans Raj held in para 20 as under :( SCC p. 715)
20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered.
Again, in para 23, it was held that the averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified."
17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.
18. Based on the above principles, the market value as per Ext. A-61 dated 22-7-1977 was Rs 1,39,130.43 per acre (approx. Rs 1.40 lakhs per acre). The said sale deed was two-and-a-half years prior in time than Section 4(1) Notification dated 22-12-1979. There is no reason to eschew the above sale transaction. It is also pointed out that the lands covered under Ext. A-61 are nearer to the lands of the appellants under acquisition."
19. This principle of law has been reiterated recently by the Apex Court in the case of Manohar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1519, in which it was held as under:-
"46. It was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 (MIDC) that the Reference Court has rightly used the principle of averaging of sale price of sale exemplars at Sr. No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for determination of market value of acquired land. However, it is clear from a reading of paragraph 20 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa & Another (2010) 13 SCC 710 that the legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction will be considered. Further, only where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. The said position of law was reiterated in the judgment of this Court in the cases of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra) and Mohammad Yusuf & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (2018) 16 SCC 105.
47. Even in the case of Major General Kapil Mehra & Others vs. UOI & Another (2015) 2 SCC 262, relied upon by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 (MIDC), it has been held that where there are several sales of similar lands, more or less, at the same time, whose prices have marginal variation, averaging thereof is permissible.
48. The position of law being thus and further on account of the fact that the lands acquired in the present case are in a prime location, we are of the considered opinion that no occasion arose for the Reference Court to deviate from the well-settled position of law and that the claimants/ Appellants deserve the benefit of the highest sale exemplar dated 31st March 1990. Not only that but in the event, the values of the sale instances taken into consideration by the Reference Court had a marginal variation, averaging thereof would have been permissible. But the sale exemplars taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the present case, were the ones from Sr. Nos. 1 to 6 and they ranged from Rs. 25,000/- per Acre to Rs. 72,900/- per Acre. In such a case, the averaging thereof was clearly not permissible."
20. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases of Mehrawal Khewaji (supra) and Manohar (supra), the land owner is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered near about the time of the acquisition. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the Court for fixing fair compensation.
21. The Apex Court in the case of Shaji Kuriakose And Anr vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors, (2001) 7 SCC 650 has held that compensation on the basis of exemplars is to be determined by considering the following factors:- (1) The transaction must be a genuine transaction, (2) the transaction should be approximate to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (3) the land sold must be situated in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) the sold land and the acquired land must be similar in nature, (5) the size of plots should also be comparable.
22. It is also well settled that prices fetched for small plots cannot form the basis for valuation of large tract of land as the two are not comparable properties.
23. Mulloor PW-1 deposed in his examination-in-chief that he sold his land measuring four biswa on 20.04.1988 to Ram Lal for consideration of Rs.1,36,500/-. His land was low lying, which was adjoining to the acquired land of Roop Narain. The acquired land was better than his land, which was plane. His land was situated within the boundaries of Nagar Palika, which was abadi land, his land was used for manufacturing bricks, which had a pit. Roop Narain's acquired land was situated near abadi and was adjoining to a road, in which mahua, mango and aonla trees were standing, there was also a well, a house which was 30-35 years old, in which vegetables were grown at the time of acquisition. Roop Narain's land was valued higher than his land. Roop Narain had a total of 9.5 bigha land out of which about 6 bigha was acquired. He has filed the copy of the sale deed which is paper no.34-C.
24. In cross-examination PW-1 deposed that towards south of his land a brick kiln was in operation which obtained soil from the adjoining lands. From the Roop Narain's well, his field was also irrigated. He denied the suggestion that Roop Narain's land was having a pit.
25. Roop Narain PW-2 deposed in his examination-in-chief that his land measuring 6-2-0 bigha situated in village Natwa was acquired by the State in the year 1990-91 for constructing power house. He had a total of 9.5 bigha land, which was fertile, in which wheat, arhar, tomato, etc. were sown, which were irrigated from the well by the help of a machine. Towards north of his acquired land, there was a pucca road which goes from Mirzapur to Allahabad. His acquired land was surrounded by abadi, carpet manufacturing factories were also situated nearby. His acquired land was plane, which was not having any pit. Mulloor's land was at a distance of 10-15 lattha from his land. At the time of acquisition, his land was cropped, which were ruined by the government, regarding which no compensation was paid to him. At the time of acquisition, land was sold @ of Rs. 30,000-40,000 per biswa. His segregated land was not suitable for cultivation which was valued at Rs. 2,000-4,000 per biswa. Four mango, one aonla and one mahua fruit bearing trees were standing on his land in which his house in an area of 50x12 foot was also constructed, his well was 65 feet deep which was having circumference of 10 feet, which was constructed at a cost of Rs.50,000/-.The State has awarded less compensation than the prevailing market value.
26. PW-2 in cross-examination admitted that a brick kiln used to operate adjoining his acquired land. He used to supply water to the nearby land owners for irrigation. The soil of his land was not taken by the brick kiln because he objected. He also admitted that when his land was acquired it was a field in which there was no abadi, which was not uneven. He denied the suggestion that he had given his land to the brick kiln and vegetables and crops were not sown on his land.
27. Anand Prasad former Ameen PW-3 deposed in his examination-in-chief that he inspected the land on 22.04.2000 at 2:30 pm which was about 10 kms. from Mirzapur.
28. Syed Rahat Raza DW-1 deposed in examination-in-chief that the Collector determined compensation on the basis of sale deed of land no.204, which was similar to the acquired land. The acquired land of claimant was at a distance of about 100 feet from the road and the land nearby, was uneven and having pits because of a brick kiln which was in operation nearby. There was no abadi near the acquired land. The acquired land was uneven.
29. DW-1 in cross-examination admitted that at the time of acquisition he was not posted at Mirzapur. He arrived in Mirzapur in July, 1998 from Ghazipur, as such, he was not aware about the condition of the acquired land prior to his arrival. The acquired land was at a distance of about 100-125 feet towards south of the road, which goes to Allahabad, which was in existence since 30-40 years. Towards east of the acquired land, there was a road which goes to Cheel via Mirzapur. There was scattered abadi of 20-25 houses. Towards south of the acquired land, there was no abadi. There were 2-4 shops selling tea and betel. He admitted that in a portion of the acquired land, there was a pucca constructed single-storeyed house. The acquired land was within Nagar Palika area.
30. Lalai Ram DW-2 deposed in examination-in-chief that Roop Narain's land was situated in 7 gatas, out of which, land of two and three gatas was in clusters, which were not adjacent. The remaining land was also separately situated in two gatas, not adjoining to each other. Roop Narain's land was not situated adjoining to a road, which had no access. Roop Narain had given his land to the brick kiln and due to the extraction of soil, his land had become uneven. He admitted that there was a well and one room on Roop Narain's land which was constructed by the brick kiln. At the time of acquisition by the Electricity Department, the land was valued at Rs.40,000-55,000 per bigha which had become degraded and uneven due to the extraction of soil by the brick kiln. He admitted that prior to acquisition, Roop Narain used to sow arhar, millets(bajra) and sorghum(jawari).
31. In cross-examination DW-2 deposed that his land was also acquired by the Electricity Department and in lieu of it, he was provided employment and due to this, he didn't file a case. Roop Narain's land consisted of 7 gatas, which was acquired by the Electricity Department in the year 1994. His land, Roop Narain's land and other people's land were acquired by the brick kiln. Roop Narain's father used to harvest tomatoes from the acquired land. They are five brothers but only he has been provided employment. No house was situated adjoining to Roop Narain's land.
32. Before the Reference Court the claimant proved the following exemplars:-
S.No.
Sale deed dated
Area of land sold
Total Consideration Rs.
Consideration per biswa Rs.
20.04.1988
0-4-0 bigha
1,36,500/-
34,125/-
23.11.1988
0-2-0 bigha
50,000/-
25,000/-
24.01.1991
0-4-10 bigha
1,12,500/-
25,000/-
33. From the evidence of Mulloor PW-1 it is evident that he had sold his land measuring 4 biswa on 20.04.1988 for consideration of Rs. 1,36,500/- which was low lying, which was adjoining to Roop Narain's acquired land, Roop Narain's acquired land was in better condition because it was plane and irrigated, which was not having pits and was also not degraded due to extraction of soil by brick kilns. It is also proved that the acquired land was used for agricultural purposes in which fruit trees were standing and seasonal vegetables were harvested. PW-1 specifically admitted that his land was used by brick kiln for extraction of soil. This witness denied the suggestion that Roop Narain's land was having pits. The certified copy of the above sale deed dated 20.04.1988 was also available on the record of the Reference Court which mentioned that the land sold was about 6 feet below the plane surface. The above land transaction took place about three years prior to the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, as such, it cannot be ignored because it was pertaining to a land which was situated near the acquired land of Roop Narain.
34. It is apparent that PW-1's land which was sold on 20.04.1988, was lying 6 feet below the plane surface and PW-1 has admitted in his above oral evidence that his land was used by brick kiln and was having pits. Roop Narain PW-2 has although deposed that his land was not uneven, was fertile and irrigated, soil was not extracted from it by the brick kiln, but on the contrary, DW-2 deposed that the acquired land of Roop Narain was uneven, having pits because soil was extracted from it by the brick kiln. Even if, it is assumed that Roop Narain's acquired land was also used by brick kiln for extraction of soil, was degraded, having pits, was barren and infertile, even then, he is entitled to get compensation on the basis of the highest exemplar dated 20.04.1988, according to which land transaction took place @ Rs.34,125/- per biswa, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khemji(supra) and Manohar(supra).
35. It is also true that the exemplar dated 20.04.1988 relates to a transaction of small piece of land measuring four biswa, whereas the area of acquired land of Roop Narain was 6-2-0 bigha.
36. The Apex Court in the case of Horrmal(Deceased) through his Lrs.& Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2990, while analysing the deductions to be made from the compensation payable to land owner, has held as under:-
30. Thus, having established the sale exemplar being relied upon and consequentially the base price to be Rupees 1,81,33,867 per acre, we now proceed to the aspect of deductions to be applied to the amount so determined. In this regard, there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of deduction to be applied towards development charges. Instead, such deductions may, for the purpose of making a small area of land comparable to larger tracts, range from a minimum of 20% to a maximum of 75%.
31. Since the degree of application of cuts is essentially a question of fact dependent on the unique circumstances of each case, the particulars to be reckoned with in determining the extent of such deduction often include a myriad of factors, such as the relative difference in the size of the land in the sale exemplar vis a vis the acquired land, proximity to a road, nearness to developed areas, etc. Additionally, several decisions have also taken into account the nature of the lands because of the stark difference that may exist between the valuation of an agricultural or undeveloped land and the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout.
32. Circling back to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the land in Ex. P5 is similar in nature to the acquired land, both being agricultural land. Its proximity to the acquired land and the fact that it is situated in the same village of Tauru, are relevant when determining the extent of deductions to be applied in calculating the compensation to be granted to the Appellants. Additionally, what is also of utmost importance is that the value of the land is corroborated by surrounding circumstances, which point towards its potentiality. Although Ex. P76 cannot be relied upon since it was executed after the Section 4 notification, it nonetheless reflects the land's potential for being used other than for agricultural purposes. Moreover, the acquired land's strategic location near the Bus Stand, Grain Market and Main Bazaar, besides being located near Palwal-Sohna-Rewari State Highway, as well as its proximity to the Industrial Township at Bhiwadi, and nearby schools and colleges, further supports the assertion that the land possesses immense potentiality.
33. On the face of these distinctive factors lies the challenge of ascertaining the appropriate extent of deduction to be made. As already established, judicial precedents dictate that the amount of deduction to be applied towards developmental charges can range from anywhere between 20% to 75%. On the one hand, we must acknowledge and recognise the stark disparity between the size of the land covered by the sale exemplar and the acquired land. On the other hand, it is incumbent that we take note of the various advantageous factors associated with the acquired land at the time of issuance of the Section 4 notification. A balanced approach in adjudicating this particular issue is therefore necessary. Considering these militating aspects, we cannot justify applying deduction at either extreme end of the spectrum. A prudent course of action might be to steer a middle path, aiming for a range approximately between 46% to 50%.
34. Having said that, even if we were to apply the higher end of deductions from this middle course, at 50%, the compensation to be granted to the Appellants would still surpass the amount initially determined by the LAC and would in fact, be closer in range to the rate granted by the Reference Court.
(emphasis supplied)
37. From the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Horrmal(supra), it is evident that where the land transaction is of a small area, then for determining the compensation for large area of acquired land and after considering the expenses incurred towards it's development, a maximum deduction of 50% can be made from the market value denoted in the exemplar, on the basis of which compensation is to be determined.
38. In the instant case, as analysed herein before, the highest exemplar dated 20.04.1988 pertains to land transaction of small area of four biswa whereas the acquired land of Roop Narain was 6 bigha 2 biswa, which was large in comparison, and assuming that it was degraded, barren, infertile and having pits from which soil was extracted by the brick kiln, as such, for developing it and making suitable for the purposes of acquisition, a maximum deduction of 50% can be made from the value reflected in the exemplar dated 20.04.1988. After making the above deduction of 50%, the true market value of the acquired land comes to Rs.17,062.50 per biswa, which the appellants are entitled to get, besides other statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisition Act,1894.
39. Insofar as the amount of compensation awarded for well, house and four fruit bearing trees situated on the acquired land of the land owner is concerned, since no contrary evidence was adduced by the land owner before the Reference Court, as such, the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector under above heads require no interference from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
40. In view of this, the Reference Court has certainly erred in not enhancing the compensation for the acquired land, upholding the Collector's award and dismissing the reference by impugned award and decree dated 08.08.2007. Consequently, this appeal has got merits and is liable to be allowed.
41. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned award and decree dated 08.08.2007 is set aside.
42. The appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation @ Rs.17,062.50 per biswa for their acquired land. They are also entitled to get 30% solatium, additional compensation @ 12% per annum and enhanced interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.
43. The instant appeal was filed on 12.11.2007 which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 13.07.2009, which was restored on 11.02.2011. Again the appeal was dismissed for deficiency of court fees and non-prosecution on 06.04.2011. The deficiency of court fees was made good on 04.05.2016 and the appeal was restored on 27.07.2016, as such, the appellants are not entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the period 12.11.2007 till 27.07.2016.
44. Costs easy. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
45. Office is directed to send back the original trial court record, forthwith.
Order Date :- 07.10.2025
Mayank
(Sandeep Jain, J.)
