Back
2004 (3) AWC 2195
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.
First Appeal Nos. 981, 979, 983, 980 and 982 of 2002
Decided on March 5, 2004
Agra Development Authority
Versus
State of U. P. and others
Land Acquisition - Scandalous state of affairs in land compensation - Land Acquisition Act, Section 4, 6, 11, 17, 18 - The court discussed the scandalous state of affairs prevailing in the State of U. P. regarding compensation being paid for land acquisition. The court held that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred as it is hit by Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court referred to various legal provisions and interpretations to support its decision, highlighting the principle that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred and the distinction between a mere right to sue and an actionable claim.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment revealed a scandalous state of affairs prevailing in the State of U. P. regarding compensation being paid for land acquisition. The court discussed multiple cases where the original tenure holders sold their rights in the land and the subsequent transferees were awarded significantly higher compensation by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mere right to sue cannot be transferred as it is hit by Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also held that the references made to the Tribunal constituted under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam were not in accordance with law.
Issues: The issues included whether the transferees of the original claimants are entitled to the compensation in place of the original claimant, and the correctness of the compensation given by the S.L.A.O.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred as it is hit by Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also found that the references made to the Tribunal constituted under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam were not in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The impugned judgments were set aside and the appeals were allowed. The Registrar of the Court was directed to take appropriate action against the concerned persons and judicial officers who appear to be in collusion.
M. Katju, J.—This bunch of First Appeals reveals a scandalous state of affairs which is prevailing in the State of U. P. regarding compensation being paid for land acquisition.
2. In First Appeal No. 981 of 2002 the land in question belonged to Bhoop Singh and others who sold their right in the land after notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in favour of a society respondent No. 3 (a) to the petition, represented by its Secretary respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 18,69,904 by 13 different sale deeds executed on 6.6.1991 and 7.8.1991.
3. The S.L.A.O. gave his award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 8.11.1991 awarding Rs. 19,12,366.70 paise which was received by the respondent No. 3 (a). Thereafter, the society filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and during the pendency of the reference application, the society transferred all its rights in respect of the property and the litigation in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000. The compensation awarded to respondent Nos. 5 to 11 is Rs. 1,02,99,491. Against this judgment of the court below the first appeal has been filed.
4. Thus, the facts of the case reveal that after purchasing the litigation for Rs. 1,35,000 respondent Nos. 5 to 11 have been awarded over Rs. one crore by the court below.
5. In First Appeal No. 983 of 2002 the land acquired is of area 14-6-4 bigha belonging to Banwari and Kisni. The compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. under the Land Acquisition Act was duly paid to them. Thereafter Banwari and Kisni filed reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. During pendency of this application they sold the litigation in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for a sum of Rs. 40,000 by three different sale deeds, dated 25.5.1998 (Rs. 10,000), 26.6.1998 (Rs. 10,000) and 23.11.1998 (Rs. 20,000). On 27.1.2001 part of the land was sold by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 6 for Rs. 15,000. On 3.7.2002 the respondent No. 4 sold part of the land in favour of respondent No. 5 for Rs. 25,000. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 got themselves impleaded in the pending reference in place of original tenure holders, Banwari and Kisni on the strength of the sale deeds in their favour. The court below has awarded them compensation of Rs. 70,94,180.70.
6. The above facts show that after paying Rs. 40,00 respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been awarded Rs. 71,00,000 by the court below.
7. Similarly, in First Appeal No. 979 of 2002 the original tenure holders were awarded compensation by the S.L.A.O. of Rs. 31,53,041.30 which was paid to them. Thereafter they filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and this litigation was purchased by the respondent P. N. Gupta for Rs. 50,000 by sale deed dated 21.3.1998 vide Annexure-4 to the affidavit in support of the amendment application. The amount of compensation for the land acquisition fixed by the court below is Rs. 60,16,375.77. After deducting the amount paid to the original tenure holder the amount awarded to Sri P. N. Gupta is Rs. 28,63,334.47. Thus, Sri P. N. Gupta having paid Rs. 50,000 for purchasing the litigation has been awarded Rs. 28,63,334.47.
8. In First Appeal No. 982 of 2002 one Ratan Lal was the original tenure holder. Before the award was given by the S.L.A.O. the litigation was purchased by Sri P. N. Gupta respondent No. 4 from Ratan Lal for Rs. 12,000 by registered sale deed of 30.10.1991. The compensation determined by the S.L.A.O. was Rs. 1,15,060 which was paid to respondent No. 4 P. N. Gupta and the compensation fixed by the court below for the said land is Rs. 6,24,701.47. Thus, the above facts show that after paying Rs. 12,000 P. N. Gupta has already received Rs. 1,15,060 by S.L.A.O. and now he has been awarded Rs. 6,24,701 by the court below.
9. These facts disclose the scandalous state of affairs prevailing in the District Courts of the U. P. and it is no w
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
