Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. Mathur and S. P. Srivastava, JJ.
MAHESH CHAND GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 31723 Of 1993
Decided On : 12/08/1997
LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 28A - COMPENSATION - REDETERMINATION - PERSONS AGGRIEVED - TRANSFER OF RIGHTS AFTER ACQUISITION - VALIDITY OF CONVEYANCE DEEDS - SECTION 6 (E) OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - PROCEDURE FOR REDETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners claimed compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for land acquired by the State for a substation. The land was acquired in 1982, and the petitioners obtained conveyance deeds from the original owners in 1990 and 1991, after the compensation had been paid and the land had vested with the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to compensation under Section 28A because they were not "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of the section. They had not been deprived of their proprietary rights over the land, and they had not made an application for a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Court also held that the conveyance deeds in favor of the petitioners were invalid because they transferred only a right to file cases to recover compensation, which is prohibited by Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. Whether the conveyance deeds in favor of the petitioners were valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To be a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28A, one must have suffered a legal grievance because of a decision pronounced by a civil court giving higher compensation for an acquired land similar to his own while he is denied of such higher compensation for his land because of operation of section 18 read with Section 31 of the Act resulting in affectation of his pecuniary interest in his acquired land is directly and adversely in that award of the Collector made under Section 11, he becomes as such aggrieved person and entitled to avail of the right and remedy conferred upon him under Section 28a (1) to make good his denied right to receive compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector/l. A. O. 2. Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits the transfer of a mere right to sue.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Special Land Acquisition Officer demanding additional compensation from the Executive Engineer were quashed.
G. P. HATHUR, J.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners which had been determined under Section 28a of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ).
( 2 ) THE affidavits filed by the parties show that three persons, namely, Ram Singh, Mahendra singh and Hukum Singh were tenureholders of plot Nos. 351, 358, 360/4 and 361/3 of village gailana Mustquil, pargana Sadar, district Agra. The aforesaid plots along with number of other plots were acquired by the State of U. P, for the purpose of construction of 400 Kv. Sub-Station by the U. P. State Electricity Board. The Notifications under Section 4 (1) and Section 6 of the act read with Section 17 were published in the Gazette on 17. 4. 1982. The possession of the land was taken by the Collector on 21. 7. 1982. The S. L. A. O, in L. A. Case No. 19 of 1982 made an award under Section 11 of the Act on 24. 6. 1986. One of the co-owners of the plots, namely. Ram singh who had l/3rd share. executed a sale deed of his existing rights in favour of Gopal Singh, sobaran Singh and Mahesh Kumar son of Nathhu Singh by means of a registered sale deed dated 10. 11. 1986 and the sale deed was registered on 23. 12. 1986. The compensation determined by the special Land Acquisition Officer in Case No. 19 of 1982 was then paid to Gopal Singh, Sobaran singh and Mahesh Kumar son of Nathhu on 9. 1. 1987, it appears that one Ram Chandra Gupta, whose plot No. 404 had been acquired under the same Notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act but in whose case award had been made by the S. L. A. O, on 20. 5. 1987, made an application to the Collector for making a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. The collector made a reference and it was registered as L. A. Case. No. 271 of 1987 and this was decided by IXth Additional District Judge, Agra, by the Judgment and award dated 31. 3. 1990. The Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 45 per sq. yard as awarded by S. L. A. O, to Rs. 115 per sq. yard. Thereafter Gopal Singh and Sobaran Singh (but not Mahesh kumar son of Nathhu, who was a co-vendee in the sale deed dated 10. 11. 1986) executed a sale deed of their rights in favour of Ram Swaroop Sharma and Ram Kumar Sharma (petitioner Nos. 3 and 4) on 31. 5. 1990. Gopal Singh and Sobaran Singh executed another sale deed of their rights in favour of Mahesh Kumar Gupta and R. K. Agrawal (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) on 27. 4. 1991. Gopal Singh. Sobaran Singh and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application under Section 28a of the Act before the S. L. A. O. Agra on 11. 6. 1990 stating that plot No. 404 belonging to ram Chandra Gupta had been acquired by means of the same Notifications under Sections 4 (1)and 6 of the Act and in his case, compensation amount had been enhanced by the judgment and award dated 31. 3. 1990 of IXth Additional District Judge, Agra in L. A. Case No. 271 of 1981 and, therefore, the compensation be redetermined with regard to plot Nos. 351, 358/2. 360/4 and 361/3, which right they had obtained by virtue of the sale deed in their favour. The S. L. A. O, then wrote a letter dated 4. 9. 1990 to the Executive Engineer of U. P. S. E. B. (respondent No. 3) asking him to remit an amount of Rs. 2,85. 226. 04 to be paid as compensation to the tenureholders of plot Nos. 351, 358/2. 360/4 and 361/3 of Village Gailana at the rate of Rs. 115 per sq. yard in accordance with the judgment and award dated 31. 3. 1990 of the IXth Additional District Judge. Agra. This was followed by another letter dated 31. 12. 1990 by the S. L. A. O. wherein he directed the Executive Engineer to remit the aforesaid amount for payment to the tenure-holders, it was further mentioned in the letter that in case the amount was not sent, the interest will go on mounting, which the department will have to bear. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. M
AI
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
