[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
FA/36/2014 on 5 January, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
SL. Office Notes,
No. Date reports,
orders or COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
proceedings
or directions
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
FA No. 61 of 2009
with
FA No. 35 of 2014
FA No. 36 of 2014
FA No. 244 of 2019
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. I.P.Kohli, learned Standing Counsel
for State/appellant no.1.
2. Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned Counsel for
appellant no.2.
3. Mr. Adarsh Rautela, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned
counsel for the appellants in FA No. 35 of
2014 and FA No. 36 of 2014.
4. Mr. Arvind Vashishta, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi,
learned counsel for the respondent in FA No.
61 of 2009.
5. Mr. Gopal K. Verma, learned counsel
for the appellant in FA No. 244 of 2019.
6. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Nainwal, learned
counsel for the proposed legal heir of the
intervener.
7. All these appeals, which are already
admitted, relates to the land acquired for the
Jolly grant Airport. Section 4 notification was
issued in 2002. The SLAO determined the
rate on the basis of the exemplar sale deed
and fixed common rate of compensation to
all the claimants and being aggrieved, the
claimants filed the reference applications
separately under Section 18 of the Act,
however, the reference court determined
different rates for the claimants. In FA No.
61 of 2009, which is the leading one, the
rate as determined by the reference court is
Rs. 800/- per square meter. In the other
appeals, the reference court determined
different rates wherein the appellants are
praying for the same rate which has been
given to Smt. Nirmala Singh the respondent
in FA No. 61 of 2009.
8. In FA No. 61 of 2009 and FA No. 244 of
2019, the application has been moved under
Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. bringing on
record the additional documents. The
objection has been filed by the State to the
application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 in
FA No. 61 of 2009, however, in respect of
the application moved under Order 41 Rule
27 of C.P.C. in FA No. 244 of 2019 no
objection has been filed since the certified
copy of the additional documents have
already been placed on record.
9. It has also been apprised to this Court
that the two appeals filed by the State were
dismissed since no requisite court fees were
paid and then a recall application was filed
which was also dismissed and then review
petition was filed, which was also dismissed
and now the matter is pending before the
Hon'ble Apex Court. Apart from it, it is also
pointed out that not only this, even the
reference court on different occasions
passed different orders the reference court
first time passed the order on 18.11.2008
which is the subject matter of First Appeal
No. 61 of 2009. The subsequent order were
passed by the reference court on
11.09.2019, which is the subject matter of
First Appeal No. 244 of 2019 in the light of
the order as passed in the case of Nirmala
Singh on 09.02.2018.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants
placed before this Court the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Narendra and
others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others (2017) 9 SCC 426 and particularly
he placed reliance to para nos. 3, 8 and 12
wherein it has been held that once a
particular rate of compensation is judicially
determined, which becomes a fair
compensation, benefit thereof is to be given
even to those who could not approach the
court. It is also relevant to mentioned here
that in the application under Order 41 Rule
27 filed in First Appeal No. 61 of 2009 one
such additional document obtained under
the Right to Information Act is also placed
on record from which it reveals that in
addition to the compensation the affected
families whose land were acquired under the
same notification were given alternate piece
of residential and agricultural land i.e. one
acre agricultural land and 300 square meters
residential plot.
11. Now the question is why these
claimants who are before this court have
been treated differently and why they have
not been treated equally and if as per the
policy the alternative agricultural land and
residential plot were given to the affected
families then the question is why these
claimants have not been given the
alternative agricultural land and residential
plot
12. List this case on 07.01.2026, in order
to enable Mr. I.P. Kohli, to get the
instructions.
13. Learned counsel for the intervener
prays for and is granted 24 hours time to
remove the defects.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
05.01.2026
Nahid
