Back
2018 Supreme(All) 810
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND SHASHI KANT, JJ.
U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ....Appellant
Versus
NAZIR AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(First Appeal Nos. 161 of 2010, 12 of 2011, 257 of 2005, 64, 313 of 2006, 493, 249 of 2005, 340 of 2013, 150 of 2005, 174 of 2006, 312, 313, 420, 314 of 2005, 1314 of 2004, 48 of 2011, 488, 311, 494, 258, 261 of 2005, 274 of 2014, 286 of 2005, 290 of 2014, 292 of 2015, 295 of 2012, 296 of 2007, 325 of 2005, 326 of 2006, 338 of 2005, 346 of 2015, 361, 362 of 2005, 365 of 2016, 367 of 2011, 380, 38 of 2006, 38 of 2017, 39 of 2006, 40 of 2005, 40 of 2006, 406 of 2011, 41 of 2006, 413 of 2014, 416 of 2009, 419 of 2005, 42, 43 of 2006, 516 of 2015, 52, 557 of 2013, 558 of 2004, 57 of 2017, 581 of 2012, 609 of 2013, 618 of 2004, 656 of 2012, 677, 678, 681 of 2005, 722 of 2013, 8 of 2011, 830 of 2012, 840 of 2014, 84 of 2011, 842 of 2014, 85 of 2011, 874 of 2014, 90 of 2006, 91 of 2013, 9 of 2011, 943 of 2014, 182, 181, 180, 179, 178 of 2018, 108 of 2007, 129, 130, 131, 132 of 2006, 15, 18 of 2016, 205 of 2015, 216, 217, 227 of 2006, 229 of 2010, 241 of 2014, 242 of 2006, 252 of 2016, 255, 505 of 2005, 368 of 2007, 39 of 2009, 737 of 2012, 90, 782 of 2014 and 251 of 2016, decided on 16th April, 2018)
Counsel :
Ms. Usha Kiran, Smt. Archana Singh, Akhileshwar Singh, K.S. Ojha, Anuj Pratap Singh, Pratik J. Nagar, Satyam Singh, Shiv Nath Singh, M.C. Chaturvedi, Nripendra Mishra, S.K. Mishra, Renu Mishra, Abhijeet Mukherji, G.P. Gupta, Satendra Pratap Singh, V.S. Shukla, A.K. Narayana, Ashish Agrawal, Mahesh Narain Singh, J.P. Gupta, Nishant Mehrotra, Gauri Singh for the Appellant; Ankur Tondon, Gaurav Tripathi, S.K. Lal, Aditya Kumar Yadav, T.N. Tiwari, R.C. Maurya, K.K. Rajbhar, R.S. Manoj, Syed Imran Ibrahim, Praveen K. Singh, Rajesh Yadav, K.S. Shukla, Tarun Tiwari, S.C., Indra Raj Singh, Adarsh Singh, Kamal Dev Singh Chanchal, V.D. Ojha, R.K. Upadhayay, Y.S. Bohra, Jai Prakash Yadav, Ravindra Kumar Yadav, S.P. Singh, Manu Vardhana, A.K. Upadhyaya, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, K.C. Kishan Srivastava, M. Vardhan, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Ashutosh Pandey, Triloki Nath, Uday Bhan, Majahar Ali, Rajshree Malviya for the Respondents.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 23, 54, 4(1), 6(1), 17, 11, 18 and 24—Land acquisition—Market value—Determination of—Whether question of market value of acquired land has rightly been adjudicated by Reference Court or not?—Acquisition of land of respondent-farmers—Not appropriate to have different rates for each piece of land belong to different landowners, but, looking to fact that area of acquired land of different landowners vary from less than 1 decimal to more than 500 decimal, uniform rate for entire land also would not be justified—If there is a sizable difference in the area of land of different landowners and area of land which is subject-matter of sale-deed exemplar, ultimately accepted for determining market value, then there may be a reasonable deduction but that too cannot be so substantial so as to cause substantive injustice to person, who has larger area of land—Exemplar has been accepted in most of References and it is also evident that acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act is of 19.5.1998, after more than two years and 6 months from date of execution of sale-deed exemplar, showing a considerate view in favour of appellants—In all the cases, where area of land acquired is upto 250 decimal, market value at Rs. 5,115 per decimal would be justified—No valid reason to make distinction in every separate piece of land for purpose of compensation, particularly when entire land acquired under same notification having same potential for development—And in cases where land acquired is more than 250 decimal, deduction for largeness of area should be applied at the rate of 58%, which will bring market value at Rs. 4,570 per decimal. [Paras 38 to 134]
Rseult; Order Accordingly.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Learned Counsel for the parties contended that since issues involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, they may be permitted to refer paper book filed in some appeals, in all remaining appeals and preparation and filing of paper books in appeals, wherein the same have not been filed, be dispensed with. We order, as prayed for, and proceed accordingly.
2. The first 95 defendant’s appeals have been filed by U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “UPSIDCL”), for whose benefit land was acquired by State of Uttar Pradesh under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”), assailing judgment and award of various dates passed by Courts of District Judge or Additional District Judge (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”) determining market value of acquired land under Section 23 of Act, 1894 for the purpose of payment of compensation to claimant-landowners.
3. The last six appeals under Section 54 of Act, 1894 have been filed by landowners against judgment and awards of Reference Court and according to them, market value determined by Reference Court is inadequate and/or does not reflect true market value of their land, which have been acquired by State of Uttar Pradesh for the benefit of UPSIDCL.
4. Since all these appeals have arisen from the same acquisition proceedings governed by the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 and issues therein are common, therefore, these appeals were heard on two dates in bunch and are being decided by this common judgment.
5. On behalf of UPSIDCL, Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Smt. Archana Singh, Ms. Usha Kiran, Sri Ghanshayam Dwivedi, Sri Akhileshwar Singh, Sri K.S.Ojha, Sri Anuj Pratap Singh, Sri Pratik J.Nagar, Sri Shiv Nath Singh, Sri Nripendra Mishra, Sri S.K.Mishra, Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, Sri G.P.Gupta, Sri V.S.Shukla, Sri Satendra Pratap Singh, Sri A.K.Narayana, Sri Ashish Agrawal, Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, Sri Abhijeet Mukherjee, Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Nishant Mehrotra, Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocates, and on behalf of claimant-landowners, Sri S.K.Lal, Sri T.N.Tiwari, Sri Tarun Tiwari, Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, Sri A.K.Singh, Sri A.K.Yadav, Sri Gaurav Tripathi, Sri Ankur Tandon, Advocates have appeared and advanced their arguments.
6. UPSIDCL, a Company registered and wholly owned by State of Uttar Pradesh, for the purpose of developing an Industrial Estate, intended to establish an Industrial Park in District Varanasi. At its instance, State Government proceeded to acquire 261-23-2/3 acres of land at Village Karkhiyanav, Pargana Kolsala, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi. A notification dated 19.5.1998 under Section 4(1) read with 17 of Act, 1894 was published in U.P. Gazatte (Extraordinary) on 21.5.1998 with the corrigendum published on 11.2.1999. A declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17 of Act, 1894 was issued and published in Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 31.3.1999 and printed in daily newspapers dated 14.11.1999 and 16.11.1999. Possession of acquired land was taken on 4.1.2001. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SLAO”), Varanasi made award under Section 11 of Act, 1894 on 4.8.2001 determining compensation at the following rates based on quality of soil/land :
fdLe Hkwfe
lfdZy jsV
nj izfr ,dM+
vftZr {ks=Qy
xks;M+ 3 flafpr
11&55
2]16]397-83
2-22 ,dM+
xks;M+ 3 vflafpr
9&37
1]76]317-19
1&30 ,adM+
Ikkyks 1 flafpr
9&87
1]85]725-79
10&27&2@3
Ikkyks 1 vflafpr
7&62
1]43]387-09
0&40
ikyks 2 flafpr
7&62
1]43]387]09
10&175
ikyks 2 vflafpr
6-00
1]12]903-22
3&56
Ikkyks 3
3&87
72]822-58
25&75
/ku[kkj 1
6&00
1]12]903-22
3&56
/ku[kkj 2
4&87
91]639-78
169&12
/ku[kkj 3
3&85
61]155-91
35&545
ikyks 2 v
