Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad - Appellant
Versus
Asha Ram (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4445 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 360 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5184 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 340 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4447 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 338 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4444 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 361 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5185 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 362 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5188 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 348 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4685 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 343 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4680 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5244 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 363 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5190 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 381 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5242 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4446 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 349 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4686 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 383 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5245 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 350 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4687 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 351 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4688 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 352 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4690 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 384 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5246 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4448 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5191 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4691 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 354 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4692 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 385 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5247 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 357 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4695 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 365 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5192 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 355 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4693 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 366 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5193 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 347 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4684 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 342 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4679 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5194 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4696 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 368 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5195 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4694 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 369 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5197 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 344 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4681 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 370 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5198 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 371 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5230 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 372 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5231 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 373 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5232 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 374 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5233 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 345 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4682 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5248 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4683 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5236 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 376 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5237 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 377 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5238 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 387 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5249 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 359 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4698 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 378 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5239 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 379 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5240 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 380 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 5241 of 2020)
Decided On : 23-03-2021
Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - Section 28 and 32 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4,6, 23 and 24 - Acquisition of land - Compensation for acquiring the land of the six villages - Appellant has been constituted under Section 28 of Act intending to acquire 1229.914 acres of land. Subsequently, a notification under Section 32 - Sections 28 and 32 of Act are equivalent to Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Special Land Acquisition Officer announced an award awarding compensation yard in respect of land of all six villages and compensation yard was awarded in respect of land owners owning more area of land for which compensation was awarded in six villages - Remaining area acres was land of Gram Panchayat or State Government, for which no compensation was awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer - Land owners being aggrieved of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer sought a Reference for determining market value - Learned Additional District Judge while deciding awarded yard as the compensation apart from the statutory benefits vide award - Landowners as well as the Parishad filed appeals Such appeals were decided separately by the High Court in respect of land acquired - High Court for reason that such sale instances were of more than 3½ years after publication of notification intending to acquire land – Held, Awarded for land acquired for purpose acquisition was five years after acquisition in question - Development activity initiated vide notification be relevant to determine market value on account of acquisition by virtue of subsequent notification, but time gap of more than five years will not entail same amount of compensation in respect of land acquired five years earlier - Compensation determined on basis of a notification five years later cannot be a yardstick for determining compensation of land which is subject matter of present acquisition years earlier - High Court was not justified in observing that gaps of few years in notification have been ignored by this Court. High Court has failed to note that date of notification for acquisition of land for benefit of Parishad is five years earlier than those in the judgments relied upon by High Court - Compensation assessed in other aforementioned cases is subsequent to date of notification, therefore, none of orders are determinative of amount of compensation - Market value as determined by High Court cannot be sustained either on the basis of sale deeds, or on strength of judicial orders – Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals arise out of an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 19.07.2019 whereby a compensation of Rs. 297/-per square yard was awarded for the land acquired in six villages apart from the statutory benefits. In the present set of 51 appeals, 38 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Prahlad Garhi; 2 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Jhandapur; 3 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Sahibabad; 2 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Jhandapur/ Sahibabad; 1 appeal pertains to land situated at Village Arthala and 5 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Makanpur.
2. The appellant – U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad1[For Short, the ‘Parishad’] has been constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 19652[For short the ‘Act’]. A notification was published on 26.06.1982 by the Parishad under Section 28 of the Act intending to acquire 1229.914 acres of land. Subsequently, a notification under Section 32 of the Act was published on 28.02.1987. Sections 28 and 32 of the Act are equivalent to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18943[For short, the ‘LA Act’].
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer announced an award on 27.02.1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 50/-per square yard in respect of land of all the six villages and compensation of Rs. 35/-per square yard was awarded in respect of land owners owning more than 8 acres. The area of the land for which the compensation was awarded in the six villages is as under:
| Sr. No. | Name of Village | Area (In Acres) |
| 1 | Arhtala | 358.95 |
| 2 | Jhandapur | 36.947 |
| 3 | Prahladgarhi | 437.379 |
| 4 | Makanpur | 76.6156 |
| 5 | Mahiuddin-Re-Kanawani | 141.0734 |
| 6 | Sahibabad | 107.05 |
| Total | 1157.895 |
The remaining area measuring 72.019 acres was the land of the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, for which no compensation was awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.
4. The land owners being aggrieved of the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer sought a Reference for determining the market value. The Learned Additional District Judge while deciding the Reference awarded Rs. 120/-per square yard as the compensation apart from the statutory benefits vide award dated 23.05.2000.
5. The landowners as well as the Parishad filed appeals against the decision of the Reference Court. Such appeals were decided separately by the High Court in respect of land acquired by the above stated notification under Section 28 of the Act. The first appeal in U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal & Ors., First Appeal No. 56 of 2005 decided on 21.7.2015 filed by the Parishad in respect of land situated in Village Prahladgarhi was dismissed on 21.07.2015. The land owners have relied upon the following three sale deeds in appeal before the High Court to claim higher compensation:
| Sr. No. | Date of Sale Deed | Area/Village | Rate per square Yard |
| 1 | 26.12.80 | 130 sq. mtr./Village Sahibabad | Rs. 180/- |
| 2 | 12.5.80 | 125 sq. mtr./ Village Sahibabad | Rs. 150/- |
| 3 | 19.6.82 | 242 sq. mtr./ Village Sahibabad | Rs. 150/- |
6. The High Court considering the three sale deeds held as under:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
