SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 348

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, JJ.
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION ….Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(First Appeal Nos. 865, 863 of 2002, 906, 908, 910, 911, 912 and 913 of 2001, 839 of 2014, 907, 904, 905, 897, 896, 895, 894, 901, 900, 898 and 903 of 2001, 16, 50, 34, 231, 229, 737, 952, 951and 953 of 2002, 61 of 2003, 455, 62 of 2002, 909 of 2001, 950, 59 of 2002, 169, 170, 183, 182 and 173 of 2015, 356 of 2006, 408 of 2008, 490 of 2002, 369 of 2006, 409 of 2008, 11 of 2012, 49, 53 of 2009, 518 of 2008, 175, 170, 173, 172, 232, 241, 242, 176 and 243 of 2013, 461, 457, 458, 489, 452, 455, 456, 454, 460, 453 and 748 of 2014, decided on 8th April, 2015)

Advocates:
Counsel :
H.R. Misra, K.M. Mishra, Pankaj Dubey, N. Lal, Radhey Shyam, Anil Babu, M.A. Misra, U.P. Singh, V.B. Singh, Rajesh Dwivedi, Rekha Pundir, Madan Mohan, C.K. Parekh and Raunak Parekh for the Appellant; S.S. Shukla, A.C. Srivastava, C.B. Dubey, Pankaj Dubey, Vivek Chaudhary, Vijai Sinha, Madan Mohan, V.B. Singh, Kalpnath Rai, Vijai Prakash, Anil Babu, N. Lal, Ramesh Pundir, Rekha Pundir, Ramendra Asthana, Vijay Singh, Raj Kumar, Pankaj Mithal, Jai Singh Chandel, Pankaj Dubey, Radhdey Shyam, Rajesh Dwivedi, Udai Pratap Singh, Satish Mandhyan, V.B. Singh, K.N. Rai, V.V. Singh, B.P. Singh K. Singh, S.K. Singh and P.P. Singh for the Respondents.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 54, 26 and 18—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 96—Land acquisition—For NTPC—Compensation—Challenge against—Court below found that tenure holders whose land were acquired are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 43 per sq. yard—And also entitled to interest @ 12% from date of notification till date of possession—And also solatium @ 30%—Parties are in agreement with Reference Court to the extent that market rate should be determined with respect to land in question at common rate—S.L.A.O. did not determined market value by looking into relevant factors but simply founded his award on the basis of circle rate—Held, for the purpose of determining market value of land under acquisition, the agreement to sell could have been taken into consideration as an exemplar—Reference Court applied 35% deduction, took market value at Rs. 67 per sq. yard, and determined payable compensation @ Rs. 43 per sq. yard—By considering the location and other potentialities, deduction of 35% held to be higher and taken at 30%—Correct rate assessed at Rs. 40 per square yard—Rest of award with regard to amount of solatium, interest etc., upheld. [Paras 23 to 81]

       Result; Appeals Partly Allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the cases carefully.

2. All these appeals have come up under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act, 1894’) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising from common award dated 31.5.2001 passed under Section 26 of the Act, 1894 by Sri Ahmad Shamim, VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad after hearing 79 land acquisition references, made under Section 18 of Act, 1894, determining compensation payable to the claimants whose land were acquired by State of U.P. for National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘N.T.P.C.’).

3. The Court below has found that tenure holders whose land were acquired, are entitled to payment of compensation @ Rs. 43 per sq. yard. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of notification i.e. 18.8.1986 till the date of possession i.e. 28th February, 1987. They are also entitled to solatium @ 30%, for the period subsequent to 28th February, 1987; for interest @ 9% for one year w.e.f. 28.2.1987 and thereafter @ 15% per annum.

4. Both the sides have filed appeals. The beneficiaries i.e. appellant-NTPC for whose benefit land was acquired have come up objecting the award challenging rate of compensation. According to it, it is on much higher side. Some of the claimant-tenure holders have come up in appeals claiming that market value for determining compensation for the land acquired is on much lower side.

5. The facts, in brief, are as under:

6. A notification dated 5th August, 1986 was published under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 in U.P. Gazette on 18.8.1986 and also in two newspapers on 24th August, 1986 proposing to acquire 139.6483 Hectares of agricultural land i.e. 327.6413 acres (correct area in acres comes to 345.0784), of village Uncha Amipur, Pargana-Dasna, Tehsil-Hapur, District Ghaziabad. Notification under Section 6 was published on 11th October, 1986 in U.P. Gazettee and in local newspapers on 14.11.1986. The aforesaid land was acquired for the purpose of establishing a power plant in National Capital Region by N.T.P.C. Collector took possession over acquired land on 28.2.1987.

7. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred as ‘S.L.A.O.’), vide award dated 8.11.1988 determined compensation @ Rs. 54932.80 per hectare (approximately Rs. 33,500/- per acre/ Rs. 15,000/- per bigha/Rs. 5 per sq. yard) being the highest and Rs. 31,616/- per acre being the lowest, in respect of different category of land. For the purpose of determining aforesaid rate of compensation, S.L.A.O. took into consideration a sale-deed dated 15.7.1985 (paper No. 39 Ga).

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, claimants whose land was acquired requested the Collector for making Reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 pursuant whereto 79 References came to be considered by the Court below vide award impugned in these appeals but we are concerned only with 53 References which have come up in these appeals.

Sl.

No.

LAR

No.

Appeal TPC/

Claimant

Plot

No.

Area

hectare/

sq. yard

First name of of the owner

Rate (Rs.)

SLAO

Court

1

226/90

865/2002

275

1.9985/

23902.06

Roop Chand

48,711.99

10,27,780.02

2

227/90

863/2002

409,

337,

228,

433B

5.7128/

68325.08

Roop Chand

1,39,269.02

29,37,978.40

3

207/90

906/2001

194

0.1264/

1511.74

Pyare

5528.17

65,004.82

4

585/90

908/2001

449

0.4046/

4839.01

Har Lal

14,915.52

2,08,077.43

5

414/90

910/2001

239

0.1358/

1624.16

Chandra Pal

6,324.82

69,838.88

6

415/90

911/2001

317

0.1994/

2384.82

Sarad








































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top