2015 Supreme(All) 1287
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND SHASHI KANT, JJ.
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. ....Appellant
Versus
DHARAMVIR AND ANOTHER ....Respondent
(First Appeal Nos. 289, 290, 291, 292, 293 of 2004, decided on 27th October, 2015)
Counsel :
Navin Sinha, Vikas Budhwar for the Appellant; Anil Sharma, K. Shailendra and S.K. Jauhari for the Respondents.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 18 and 54—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 96—Compensation—Award of—Market value—Since no cross objection or appeal has been filed by claimants-respondents against deduction applied by Reference Court—Award cannot successfully be assailed by claimants on that count—Impugned award, however, having already shown favour to appellant warrants no interference—Rate determined by Court below is not very adequate so far as claimants’ point of view is concerned, still it cannot be said to be excessive or unjust or unreasoned as claimed by appellant. [Paras 40, 41 and 47]
Result; Appeal Dismissed.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—All these five appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) read with Section 96 C.P.C., have arisen from a common Award/judgment and decree dated 1.11.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.3 Bijnor in Land Acquisition References mentioned below :
S. No.
First Appeal No.
Parties Name
Land Acquisition Reference No.
1.
289 of 2004
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dharamvir and another.
72 of 1994
2.
290 of 2004
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dharamvir and another.
17 of 1995
3.
291 of 2004
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Abdul Wahid and others.
175 of 1997
4.
292 of 2004
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Anand Prakash and others.
90 of 1994
5.
293 of 2004
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Zakir Hussain and others.
13 of 1994
2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these appeals, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of convenience and with the consent of parties, facts from the record of First Appeal No. 289 of 2004 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dharamvir and another), have been taken.
3. The Court below has determined market value for the purpose of compensation of acquired land @ 135/- per sq. meter besides solatium @ 30% under Section 23 of Act, 1894 and interest at the rate of 12% as per statute.
4. The actual dispute raised before this Court is about rate of market value determined by the Court below.
5. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “HPCL”) is a company owned by Government of India and on its proposal, Government of India issued a Notification dated 7.7.1991 under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 proposing to acquire certain land at Village Tatarpur, Rahukhedi Kora and Rahukedi Gadhu, District Bijnor, for the purpose of constructing a Petroleum Product Depot of HPCL. Notification under Section 6(1) of Act, 1894 was published on 31st August, 1991/5th October, 1991 and possession of acquired land was taken on 17th December, 1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLAO’) made its award on 5th October, 1993 determining market value at the following rates :
Sl. No.
Type of Land
Circle Rate
Compensation per bigha
1
Sawai Doyam
Rs. 5-69
Rs. 1,04,292.65
2
Sawai Avval
Rs. 8-19
Rs. 1,50,000.28
3
Matiyar Doyam
Rs. 60,622.82
Rs. 3-31
6. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination of market value, claimant/tenure-holders made application requesting for making Reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894 to the District Judge, whereupon LAR No. 72 of 1994, 13 of 1994, 90 of 1994, 17 of 1995 and 175 of 1997, with which we are concerned in these Appeals, were made.
7. The claimants said that acquired land is an abadi, near Degree college, Radio Station, Irrigation Department Residential Colony and Adarsh Nagar Colony. On the northern side, Railway Station Najibabad, its Residential Colony, Bus Stand and Abadi of Najibabad town exists. On the western side of acquired land there is abadi. It has great potential of development. On the eastern side of acquired land, exist, factories of Thums Up, Card Board, etc. Therefore the land has potential of Industrial development also.
8. On behalf of claimants, besides documentary evidence, five witnesses namely P.W.1 Dharamveer, P.W.2 Rajiv Kumar, P.W.3 Smt. Vijay Laxmi, P.W.4 Amarjeet Singh and P.W.5 Tahir Hussain were produced.
9. All the References were consolidated together and LAR No. 72 of 1994 was made “leading case”. Documentary evidence adduced by claimants included the following :
(i) Certified copy of sale deed dated 2.7.1982 execut