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) 1353

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, JJ.
COLLECTOR, AGRA AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
SHYAM BABU AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(First Appeal 949 of 2000, decided on 2nd July, 2015)

Advocates:
Counsel :
S.C. for the Appellants; Santosh Kumar and Ashok Tripathi for the Respondents.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4(1), 23(1-A) and 30(2) – Acquisition of land – Market value – Compensation – On the basis of exemplar sale-deed – Legality of – Market value determined by Court on an exemplar sale-deed, whereby a very small piece of land transferred by sale though area of disputed acquired land was big area – Exemplar sale-deed related to a very small piece of land, while area of disputed land was big area, therefore, deduction of only one-third, not justified – Other exemplar sale-deed filed by claimant rejected for invalid reasons, hence, the matter required re-examination by Court below – Impugned order passed by Court below, liable to set aside. [Paras 25 to 32]

       Result; Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1894) has arisen from the award/judgment dated 23.11.1998 passed by Sri A.K. Roopanwal, Special Judge, E.C. Act/Additional District Judge, Agra in Land Acquisition Reference of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as LAR) No.179 of 1993, determining market value of acquired land at Rs. 237/- per sq. meter. Besides, it has also awarded 30% solatium, additional compensation of 12% and interest for various periods as per the provisions of Act 1894.

2. Grievance of the appellant State and its authority is that the rate determined by Court below is excessive, unjust and unreasonable. It has relied on an exemplar sale-deed, whereby a very small piece of land was transferred by sale though the area of disputed acquired land is 3 Bigha 9 Biswa and 10 Biswansi (8008 sq. meter) and for such a big plot exemplar of a minuscule piece of land ought not to have been applied.

3. The claimants-land owners have also filed cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square meter and their grievance is that compensation determined by Court below is unjust and unreasonable. Entire Court fee has been paid by claimants-respondents but there is some delay in filing aforesaid Court fee, which is hereby condoned.

4. We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Tripathi, Advocate for claimants-respondents in appeal as well as cross-objections.

5. Paper book of appellants does not contain requisite documents as it includes only memorandum of appeal but paper book filed on behalf of respondents includes relevant documents, hence parties have addressed the Court on the basis of paper book of respondents.

6. The facts in brief giving rise to these proceedings are that the State Government for the purpose of establishing a Primary Health Center at Tehsil Bah, District Agra proposed to acquire certain land and in furtherance thereof a notification under Section 4(1) was published in U.P. Gazette dated 6.9.1989 proposing acquisition of 3 Bigha, 9 Biswa and 10 Biswanshi, i.e., (8008 square meter) land at Village Jaitpur, Pargana and Tahsil Bah, District Agra. Notification under Section 6 was published on 22.2.1990 and possession of land was taken on 29.1.1991. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the “SLAO”) made its award dated 13.3.1991 determining market value at the rate of Rs. 79.68 per square meter. Aggrieved therewith claimants-land owners submitted application before District Magistrate for making reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894 to District Judge, Agra for determining market value of acquired land in the light of factors stated in Section 23 of Act, 1894. The claimants desired compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square meter. The Court below formulated followings issues:

“(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? If so, what is the correct compensation?

(2) Whether the acquired land had the potentiality as building site or was in agricultural land?

(3) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive Solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 30(2) of Land Acquisition Act?

(4) Whether the claimants are entitled to get additional amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of Notification under Section 4 of this Act upto the date of possession?

(5) Whether the claimants are entitled to get interest under Sections 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act?

(6) Whether the claim petition is barred by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act?

(7) To what relief, if any, are the claimants entitled?”

7. Issue 2 was answered holding that acquired land has potentiality of construction of building and Abadi has emerged near it. In paras 13 and 14 of the awa































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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