Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, JJ.
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ....Appellant
Versus
JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(First Appeal No. 96 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54510 of 2005, First Appeal Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 of 2005, 169 of 2014, 64, 65 of 2005, 721 of 2014, 66 of 2005, 113 of 2014, 67 of 2005, 216 of 2012, 68, 69 of 2005, 196 of 2012, 70 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54541 of 2005, First Appeal No. 71 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54534 of 2005, First Appeal Nos. 72, 73, 74 of 2005, Cross Objection Nos. 2109 of 2007, 59158 of 2005, First Appeal No. 75 of 2005, Cross Objection Nos. 2105 of 2007, 328192 of 2009, First Appeal No. 76 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54508 of 2005, First Appeal No. 77 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54532 of 2005, First Appeal Nos. 78, 79 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54530 of 2005, First Appeal Nos. 80, 81 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 329476 of 2009, First Appeal No. 82 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292852 of 2009, First Appeal No. 83 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292847 of 2009, First Appeal Nos. 84 of 2005, 431 of 2012, 85, 86, 87 of 2005, 641 of 2013, 88 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 15338 of 2005, First Appeal No. 90 of 2005, 549 of 2015, 91, 92, 93 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 4758 of 2008, First Appeal No. 94 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 4755 of 2008, First Appeal No. 95 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 4754 of 2008, First Appeal No. 97 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54549 of 2005, First Appeal No. 98 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54545 of 2005, First Appeal No. 99 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54536 of 2005, First Appeal No. 100 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54524 of 2005, First Appeal No. 101 of 2005, Cross Objection Nos. 55780, 55788 of 2005, First Appeal No. 102 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54547 of 2005, First Appeal No. 103 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292856 of 2009, First Appeal No. 104 of 2005, Cross Objection Nos. 2098 of 2007, 54526 of 2005, First Appeal No. 105 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59161 of 2005, First Appeal No. 106 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 288079 of 2009, First Appeal Nos. 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292839 of 2009, First Appeal Nos. 130, 131 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 282123 of 2009, First Appeal Nos. 132, 133, 134, 135 of 2005, Cross Objection Nos. 282109, 298342 of 2009, First Appeal No. 136 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292849 of 2009, First Appeal No. 137 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292844 of 2009, First Appeal No. 139 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 298329 of 2009, First Appeal No. 140 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292872 of 2009, First Appeal Nos. 143, 146, 147, 148, 152, 153 of 2005, 211 of 2012, 156 of 2005, 215 of 2012, 157 of 2005, 604 of 2012, 158, 160 of 2005, 670 of 2012, 162, 163, 164, 165 of 2005, 214 of 2012, 168, 169 of 2005, 644 of 2013, 170, 172 of 2005, 213 of 2012, 173 of 2005, 217 of 2012, 189 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55772 of 2005, First Appeal Nos. 190, 191 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54543 of 2005, First Appeal No. 192 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59164 of 2005, First Appeal No. 193 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59152 of 2005, First Appeal No. 194 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55763 of 2005, First Appeal No. 195 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59171 of 2005, First Appeal No. 196 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59154 of 2005, First Appeal No. 197 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55799 of 2005, First Appeal No. 198 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54538 of 2005, First Appeal No. 200 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 21115 of 2006, First Appeal No. 201 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 2103 of 2007, First Appeal No. 202 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 2097 of 2007, First Appeal No. 203 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 26448 of 2007, 55797 of 2005, First Appeal No. 204 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55783 of 2005, First Appeal No. 205 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 2115 of 2007, First Appeal No. 206 of 2005, Cross Objection Nos. 55794 of 2005, 2102 of 2007, First Appeal No. 208 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55791 of 2005, First Appeal No. 209 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55759 of 2005, First Appeal No. 210 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55778 of 2005, First Appeal No. 211 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54528 of 2005, First Appeal No. 212 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 54512 of 2005, First Appeal No. 217 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 292836 of 2009, First Appeal No. 218 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55769 of 2005, First Appeal No. 219 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59169 of 2005, First Appeal No. 220 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55786 of 2005, First Appeal No. 234 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59156 of 2005, First Appeal No. 235 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 55775 of 2005, First Appeal No. 236 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 59166 of 2005, First Appeal Nos. 632, 637 of 2005, 753 of 2013, 638, 641, 643, 647, 648, 650, of 2005, 642 of 2013, 669 of 2012, 640 of 2013 and 380 of 2017, decided on 12th December, 2018)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – Circle rate fixed by Collector – Held, is not relevant material unless such determination is under a statutory obligation and after following a prescribed procedure. [Para 42]
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – Exemplars – Reliability – It is not number of exemplars which is important and would determine issue whether burden has been discharged by Claimants that offer of compensation made by Collector is inadequate and he is entitled to higher compensation – It is genuity, authenticity and creditworthiness of documents – Further when there are more than one exemplar, one which provides highest rate, has to be followed. [Paras 53 and 55]
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – Exemplars – Reliability – Where an exemplar of small piece of land is relied in absence of any other relevant material – Court may determine market value in view of evidence relating to sale price of small developed plots – In such cases deduction varying from 20% to 75% is liable to apply depending upon nature of development of lay out in which exemplar plot is situated. [Para 71]
(E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – Deductions – Whenever area of acquired land is larger than area of land which is subject-matter of exemplar and smaller in size – Same is admissible subject to appropriate deduction – However deduction for development is different than deduction permissible in respect of largeness of area vis-a-vis exemplar of small piece of land – Rates on which development authorities used to offer allotment of developed plots carved out by them in residential or industrial area – Such rates apparently cannot form basis for compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands. [Paras 56 and 70]
(F) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – Land of farmers is being taken by State and thereby they are being deprived of earning their livelihood by cultivation – Acquisition proceedings commenced in 1995 and still dispute of adequate compensation is pending for adjudication though more than 23 years passed – Documents showing that besides development already existing in vicinity of acquired land there existed a situation where even land used for agricultural purposes was being transferred/sold by way of small plots – And rates in 1993 for such small piece of land was around Rs. 200/- per square meter which got increased to Rs. 300/- per square meter in 1994 – Thus rate determined by Reference Court at Rs. 131/- per square meter held on lower side – Further on fact that land is more than one kilometer in depth from road and area of acquired land of different Land Owners vary to a large extent – 33 per cent deduction applied to rate disclosed in sale-deed exemplar in market rate at Rs. 200/- per square meter – Therefore land within 500meters from road should valued for compensation at market rate of Rs. 200/- per square meter and for land beyond 500 meters from road 50 per cent deduction applied to sale-deed exemplar rate and 10 per cent appreciation to rate of sale-deed bringing market value at Rs. 150/- per square meter – However where area of land acquired was more than 10,000 square meters if it is out of 500 meters from road, a further 10 per cent deduction applied to respective rates i.e. if within 500 meters and it was determined at rate of Rs. 180/- per square meter and if it was beyond 500 meters it will fetch compensation at rate of Rs. 135/- per square meter. [Paras 125 and 134]
Result; Order Accordingly.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—All these appeals have arisen from the land acquisition proceedings commenced with notification dated 13.2.1995 1995 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1894”) in respect of acquisition of land having area more than 70 hectors in villages ‘Mataur’ and ‘Samauli Salempur’, District Meerut, hence have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. In some of the appeals, there are some substitution applications. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, all such applications stand allowed.
2. 120 appeals under Section 54 of Act, 1894 have been filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “PGCIL”) for whose benefit land in question was acquired and 21 appeals have been filed by land owners. Besides, in some appeals preferred by PGCIL, land owners have also filed cross objections/cross appeals which are 67 in total, though filed in 60 appeals. In 60 appeals single cross objection/cross appeals have been filed while in 7 appeals, two cross objections/cross appeals have been filed.
3. Before proceeding further, we may also place on record that 120 appeals of PGCIL as well as cross objections/cross appeals were earlier decided by this Court vide judgment dated 22.2.2016. This Court found that Reference Court determined market value on the basis of an exemplar sale-deed which was in respect of 6000 square meters land while the area of acquired land in respect to several land owners was much smaller and other exemplar sale-deeds were rejected only on the ground that the same pertain to smaller piece of land and this was not just and reasonable considering the fact that land which was acquired belong to a large number of land owners and their total land qua each individual land owner varies in size from 50 sq. meters to 41530 square meters and, therefore, a single rate for the entire segment of land was unjust as it amounts to treating unequals as equals. This Court, therefore, remanded the matter to Reference Court to redetermine market value in the light of the discussions made in the said judgment. A large number of land owners took up the matter in Supreme Court and filed Civil Appeals led by Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5429-5455 of 2017). All the appeals have been allowed by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 1.5.2017 observing that documents placed on record were sufficient to determine compensation and, therefore, remand to Reference Court was not justified. The judgment of Supreme Court reads as under:
“Leave granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it would have been proper for the High Court to decide the matter itself instead of remanding the matter to the Trial Court as the High Court had observed that no further evidence is required, as the documents adduced by the parties and the other evidence on record is sufficient to determine the compensation. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court and request the High Court to take up the matter on merits and decide itself the Appeals as well as cross objections in accordance with law. In case the High Court comes to the conclusion, while hearing the appeals, that it is necessary to record further evidence nothing prevents the High Court from exercising the power for doing complete justice. It may also direct recording of the evidence by Reference Court in case it is considered necessary and call for finding.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand accordingly allowed to the said extent.”
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, all the appeals earlier decided have been restored and listed before us alongwith some other appeals which earlier remained undecided though arising from the same acquisition proceeding.
5. Heard Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Bhargava, Sri Pankaj Agarwal and Ms. Tanisha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
