Allahabad High Court
Sriya And Others vs State Of U.P. on 9 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:158688
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. - 277 of 2016
Sriya And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
M.D. Singh Shekhar, P.N. Tripathi, Ram Dayal Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ambrish Shukla, S.C.
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.151328 of 2003, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.151331 of 2003, Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.151333 of 2003, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.151334 of 2003:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.2 Hawa Singh, who has died on 04.08.1998, leaving behind his widow namely Smt. Kamlesh and three major sons namely Shrawan, Yogendra and Banti.
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant No.4 Murari had died on 12.01.1984, before filing of the present appeal but erroneously, he has been impleaded as appellant No.4. It is also submitted that appellant no.4 Murari had died, leaving behind his widow namely Smt. Kasturi Devi and four sons namely Virendra, Raje, Arjun and Raj Kishore.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal was dismissed for want of court fees on 30.01.1985, as such, the above facts could not be communicated to the learned counsel for the appellants namely Sri Baleshwar Verma and J.S. Srivastava, who had also died till 1994, as such, the substitution application could not be moved within time.
5. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which is uncontroverted.
6. The cause shown for filing the substitution application with delay is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.
7. Accordingly, the delay condonation and substitution applications are allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.94645 of 2013, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.94644 of 2013, Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.94646 of 2013 Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.94647 of 2013:-
1. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant no.1 Siriya, who has died on 25.01.2013, leaving behind his two major sons namely Natthu & Phool Singh.
2. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant No.2 Prem Singh had also died on 18.01.2013, leaving two major sons namely Satish Kumar & Jai Bhagwan.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant No.4/1, Virendra son of Murari has also died on 26.09.2012, leaving behind his two major sons namely Mool Chand and Rovin Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appeal had been dismissed for want of court fees and learned counsels representing the appellants had also expired, as such, the substitution application could not be moved within time.
5. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which is uncontroverted.
6. The cause shown for filing the substitution applications with delay is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution applications is condoned.
7. Accordingly, the delay condonation and substitution applications are allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.256083 of 2016, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.256084 of 2016, Civil Misc. Transposition Application No.256902 of 2016:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant no.1/2 Phool Singh, who has died on 05.09.2015, leaving behind his three major sons namely Mukesh, Tilak Raj & Sunil.
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondent No.2 Hawa Singh, respondent No.3 Ram Singh and respondent No.4 Tej Pal, are the co-owners of the acquired land, they be allowed to be transposed from respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 to appellant Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 in the present appeal.
4. Since the above respondents are co-owners of the acquired land, as such, they are required to be impleaded as appellant in this appeal.
5. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which is uncontroverted.
6. The cause shown for filing the substitution application with delay is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.
7. Accordingly, the delay condonation, substitution and transposition applications are allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.7 of 2019, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.8 of 2019, Civil Misc. Transposition Application No.9 of 2019:-
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the above applications.
2. In view of the above, the above applications are dismissed as not pressed.
Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.10 of 2021:-
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the land was acquired for the benefit of Noida, as such, Noida is the necessary party in this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted permission to implead Noida as respondent No.2 in the instant appeal.
3. In view of the above, the impleadment application is allowed.
4. Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-Noida has accepted notice on behalf of Noida.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.14 of 2025, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.15 of 2025, Civil Misc. Application No.16 of 2025, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.17 of 2025:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant no.3 Madan Singh, who has died on 28.03.2025, leaving behind his son namely Dev Prakash.
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant No.4/1 Smt. Kashturi Devi had died on 09.03.2020, leaving behind proposed appellants Raju, Virendra, Arjun & Raja @ Raj Kumar as her legal heirs.
4. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that son of appellant no.4 Raj Kumar (proposed appellant No.4/5) has also died on 11.03.2023, leaving behind his sole son namely Kapil Chauhan as his legal heir.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the legal heirs were not aware that the legal heirs of deceased are to be substituted in the appeal and further since so many legal heirs have died, as such, the surviving legal heirs were not in a position to inform the counsel regarding demise of some of the appellants.
6. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which is uncontroverted.
7. The cause shown for filing the substitution applications with delay is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution applications is condoned.
8. Accordingly, the delay condonation and substitution applications are allowed.
9. The abatement, if any, is also set aside.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
Order on Appeal:-
1. Admit.
2. The instant first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the land owners against the impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.1983 in LAR No.21 of 1978 [Chotey (deceased) through LRs & others Vs. State of U.P.] made by Shri Umeshwar Pandey, VIth Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad, whereby the compensation for the acquired land has been determined at the rate of Rs.18,150/- per bigha or @ Rs. 6/- per sq. yard alongwith other statutory benefits available at that time under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant appeal, the land of village Agahapur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad was acquired vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 16.09.1976, thereafter the award of the Collector was made on 11.08.1977, who awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.13,205.71 per bigha, which was enhanced to Rs.18,150/- per bigha by the impugned award.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in respect of similar land situated in village Agahapur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad previously this Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard vide order dated 27.05.2016 passed in First Appeal No.458 of 1984 (Jagmal & others Vs. State of U.P.) against which, the land owner Jagmal had preferred Special Leave to Petition (C) No.18168 of 2016, Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. & others, before the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 30.09.2016, as such, the order of the High Court granting compensation at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard, has attained finality.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in view of the above decided cases, the appellants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard besides other statutory benefits, as available under the Act.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that this Court has awarded compensation of the similarly acquired land at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard, in First Appeal No.458 of 1984, which has attained finality. He further submitted that the appellants may not be paid the interest for the period during which the appeal remained defective on account of non payment of courts fees.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is apparent that the instant appeal relates to the land acquired in village Agahapur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, regarding which a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the U.P. Gazette on 16.09.1976 regarding which the Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.13,205.71 per bigha, which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.18,150/- per bigha. It is also apparent that this Court in First Appeal No.458 of 1984 has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard, for similar land situated in village Agahapur. This order has attained finality because the Special Leave to Petition (C) No.18168 of 2016 preferred by the land owner Jagmal was dismissed by the Apex Court on 30.09.2016.
9. The Apex Court has also in the case of Ajai Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in AIR 2021 SC 4603, decided on 23.09.2021 has awarded compensation @ Rs28.12 per square yard regarding the acquisition of land by Noida pertaining to the year 1976-77.
10. Since for similarly situated land, this Court has earlier awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard, as such, the appellants are also entitled to get this amount of compensation. The award of the reference court was made on 27.09.1983, i.e. after the introduction of the Amendment Bill in the Parliament on 30.04.1982, as such, the appellants are also entitled to enhanced statutory benefits in accordance with Act No.68 of 1984, which came into effect on 24.09.1984.
11. Since the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 16.09.1976, the possession was taken on 26.10.1976 and the award of the Collector was made on 11.08.1977, as such, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Giani, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 480, the appellants are not entitled to get additional compensation @ 12% per annum.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard, enhanced solatium at the rate of 30%, and enhanced interest at the rate of 15% under Section 28 of the Act.
13. This appeal was filed on 13.02.1984 but the deficiency of the court fees was made good on 08.08.2001, as such, the appellants are not entitled to get any statutory interest on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the above mentioned period between 13.02.1984 to 08.08.2001.
14. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 15. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
September 9, 2025
Himanshu
