Back
2012 Supreme(All) 1940
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.P.Mehrotra, J.
Hari Shankar -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others -Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50556 of 2007
Decided On : 31-07-2012
Counsel for the Petitioner: Krishna Kumar Chaurasiya, Suresh Chandra Verma , Satyendra Kumar Singh.
Counsel for the Respondents: P.C. Shukla (Addl. C.S.C).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was not entitled to claim market value of the acquired surplus land but only the 'amount' as per the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960.
Headnote:
Compensation - Ceiling Act - Section 17, Schedule - The court upheld the computation of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960 including Schedule thereto. The petitioner was not entitled to claim market value of the acquired surplus land but only the 'amount' as per the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner regarding the compensation for acquired surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to claim market value of the acquired surplus land but only the 'amount' as per the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960. The court also held that no compensation was to be paid to the petitioner in regard to the trees allegedly existing on the surplus land. The court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner to claim market value of the acquired surplus land, compensation for the trees on the surplus land, and the payment of interest at a higher rate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim market value of the acquired surplus land but only the 'amount' as per the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960. The court also found that there was no occasion to award any compensation to the petitioner in regard to the trees allegedly existing on the surplus land. Additionally, the court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum from the date of taking possession of the surplus land.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the court.
Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. The petitioner as filed Rejoider Affidavit in reply to the said Counter Affidavit.
2. The Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter-alia, praying for quashin8 the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue)/Pre-scribed Authority (Ceiling), Mirzapur (respondent No. 4) in Case No. 1/Compensation, Year 2002-03, and the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2007 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur (respondent No. 2).
4. It is, inter-alia, averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was the owner and in possession of Khata No. 23, Plot Nos. 204-kha, 205-kha, area 0.345 hectare; Khata No. 29, Plot Nos. 65, 266, 192, 275, 276-kha, 277, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377, 388, area 6.290 hectare; Khata No- 71, Plot Nos- 445- 97, 334, 131, 337, 191, 342, 198, 340, 199, 358, 203, 359, 335, 360, 336, 361, 362, 364, 365 situated in Village Lahaura, Pareana-Sakteshgarh, Tehsil-Chunar, District-Mirzapur.
5. It is, inter-alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that Plot Nos. 276-kha, 277, 373, 374, 375-M, 388' area 2-184 hec-tare, (8-15-0 Bigha) of the petitioner was declared as surplus land m the proceeding under the U. P. Imposition of ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short "The Ceiling Act, I960"); and that 7 trees of Mango, 9 trees of Mahua, 4 trees of Neem were standing over the surplus land at the time of taking pos#31;session thereof on 24.2.1975, and also the crops of the petitioner, namely, Chana and Arhar were standing at the time of taking possession of the surplus land on 24.2.1975.
6. Copy of C.L.H. Form No. 8 showing particulars of surplus land prepared under Rule 21 (i) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (in short "The Ceiling Rules, 1961") has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition.
7. It is, inter-alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that no compensation for the acquired land, trees and crops was paid to the petitioner since the date of taking possession, i.e., 24.2.1975; and that the respondent No. 4 sent a Letter dated 14.1.1999, alongwith the original file pertaining to compensation in re#31;spect of the petitioner, to the Tehsildar, Chunar, District-Mirzapur giving refer#31;ence of an earlier Letter dated 24.12.1998 sent to the said Tehsildar, and requiring the said Tehsildar to correct the said original file and send back the same af#31;ter correcting the same. Copy of the said Letter dated 14.1.1999 has been filed as- Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition.
8. It is, inter-alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that after all the papers relating to the petitioner sent by the Tehsildar-Chunar to the respondent No. 4 were received, a case, namely, Case No. 1/Compensation of 2002-03 was registered; and that after receiving the notice, the petitioner filed an Applica#31;tion before the Chief Revenue Officer, Mirzapur dated 16.4.2002, inter-alia, praying that compensation in regard to the surplus land be awarded at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per Bigha, and further, interest at the rate of 15% per annum be also awarded, and further, compensa#31;tion in respect of the trees existing on the surplus land and the damage to the crops standing at the time of taking pos#31;session of the surplus land be also awarded. It is averred that on the said Application, the Chief Revenue Officer, Mirzapur passed an Order dated 16.4.2002 directing the Nayab Tehsildar to submit his report. Copy of the said Application dated 16.4.2002 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition.
9. It is pertinent to note that along#31;with the Counter Affidavit filed on be#31;half of the respondents, copy of C.L.H. Form No. 9 prepared under R
