AMI CHAND vs STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 255

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2017 Supreme(All) 255

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, JJ.
AMI CHAND ....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Respondent
(First Appeal No. 143 of 1978, decided on 20th February, 2017)

Subject

Land Acquisition - MARKET VALUE

Act Referred

LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.54, S.4(1), S.6(1), S.17(1), S.18, S.23(1)

Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 54, 4(1), 6(1), 17(1), 18 and 23(1)—Land acquisition—Market value—Determination of—Appellant sought compensation at Rs. 2 per square yard, but by subsequent amendment he sought for compensation @ Rs. 40 per square yard—Whether Reference Court justified in affirming market value determined by SLAO or it should have determined market value on a higher rate—Reference Court does not sit in appeal over award of Land Acquisition Officer—When exemplars are adduced, normally it is found that exemplars of small land and that too, in developed area after plotting and development are relied on—Deduction should be applied where undeveloped and under-developed land is acquired and it can vary from 10% to 70%, depending upon various factors of each case—Similarly, if area of land exemplar is very small, appropriate deduction can be made—Land in question admittedly have potential for building activities—Matter being old, Court directed for payment of compensation to appellant @ Rs. 4.35 per square yard—Alongwith solatium, interest etc.—Direction issued. [Paras 14 to 106]

Result; Appeal Allowed.

Advocates:
Counsel :
D.P. Singh, Gulrez Khan, Mazahar Ul Islam, Noor Mohd., Rajeev Gupta and V.K. Srivastava for the Appellant; S.C. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing counsel for State of U.P.

2. Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as UPSIDC), through its Chairman is respondent No. 2 and notices were issued to it by registered post A.D. as well as Courier to him. Perused report dated 28.7.2016. Service of notice upon respondent No. 2, is deemed sufficient under the Rules. Neither respondent No. 2 has chosen to appear through counsel nor any one representative of respondent No. 2 is appeared, hence we proceed to hear and decide appeal against respondent No. 2 ex parte.

3. This is an appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1894'), arisen from judgment and award dated 28.10.1976, passed by Sri P. C. Saxena, Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as ‘LAR’) No. 394 of 1972, whereby market value determined by Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLAO’), has been confirmed and Reference has been answered accordingly.

4. Appellant alone has filed this appeal claiming compensation at Rs. 2/- per square yard, but by subsequent amendment he has prayed for compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard.

5. Disputed area of land of appellant is 4 Bigha 7 Biswa (12952 square yards) and 8 Bigha 1 Biswa (24,351-1/4 square yards), situated in Village Karkar Mandal and Jhandapur, District Ghaziabad.

6. At the instance of UPSIDC for planned development of Industries in Village Karkar Mandal, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District, Ghaziabad, acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing notification dated 15.12.1967 under Section 4(1) of LAR Act, 1894 published in U.P. Gazette dated 23.12.1967. Notification proposed to acquire 152.6235 acres of land.

7. Declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) and (1-A), dated 9.1.1969, was published in U.P. Gazettee dated 11.1.1969. Possession of land by Collector was taken on 6.3.1969. SLAO vide award dated 21.3.1970 determined market value for the purpose of compensation of acquired land, at the rate of Rs. 1.10 per square yard. Dissatisfied therewith, land owners including appellant, made an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, requesting Collector to make Reference to District Judge for determination of market value of acquired land. Land owners including appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square yard. Reference Court by impugned judgment and award, however, has found market value determined by SLAO justified and declined to provide any higher rate, hence this appeal.

8. Question for consideration in this appeal is “whether Reference Court was justified in affirming market value determined by SLAO or it should have determined market value on at a higher rate.”

9. Claimant relied on an exemplar sale-deed dated 26.6.1964 executed by Behari and Chhotey in favour of M/s Mahamaya General Finance Private Company Limited, in respect to two plots No. 532(1-1-0) and 533 (2-18-0), according to which rate comes to Rs. 4.35/- per square yard. Per contra defendant-respondent relied on a sale-deed dated 27.2.1967 executed by one Ram Lal in favour of one Jiya Lal in respect to plot No. 658/2(1-10-0) for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- which leads to market rate at Rs. 1.10 per square yard. Since sale-deed dated 27.2.1967 was nearer to the date of acquisition of notification issued under Section 4(1), the same was followed by SLAO and Reference Court upheld the same. Reference Court has also observed that claimant sought compensation at Rs. 3/- per square yard which shows that the claimant land owners were also not relying on the sale-deed dated 26.6.1964, according to which the land was transferred at the rate of Rs. 4.35 per square yard.

10. S