Back
2019 Supreme(All) 320
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
Dharam Pal – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. – Respondent
First Appeal No. 302 of 2008
Decided On : 07-03-2019
Anil Sharma, Adv., Dheeraj Singh Bohra, Adv., Amit Manohar, Adv.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Consideration of facts Whether compensation of land of Village acquired under Section 4 of Act, 1894, can be determined at same rate as determined by Division Bench in First Appeal with respect to land of same village acquired when first appeals relating to land acquisition were connected and Division Bench passed judgment without being informed or without notice of this fact – Held, Sale-deed exemplars filed by claimant-appellants not found by reference court to good exemplars – Reference Court selected sale-deed as good exemplars for reason that this sale deed was of land of adjoining village and no sale-deed of village prior to date of acquisition was available – After giving deduction of 20% towards largeness of area acquired, court determined market value of acquired land – Thus, amount of compensation determined by court on basis of sale deed of plot not inadequate – Sale-deed exemplar filed by claimant-appellants in evidence before court below reflects highest selling rate of very small piece of land which made basis by reference court to determine compensation of acquired land – Claimant-appellants are not entitled to compensation of their land acquired as was determined in case of Mangu and others (supra) with respect to land acquired – Appeal dismissed. (Paras: 31,32 & 38)
Facts of the case:
Consideration of facts Whether compensation of land of Village acquired under Section 4 of Act, 1894, can be determined at same rate as determined by Division Bench in First Appeal with respect to land of same village acquired when first appeals relating to land acquisition were connected and Division Bench passed judgment without being informed or without notice of this fact.
Findings of the court:
Sale-deed exemplars filed by claimant-appellants not found by reference court to good exemplars – Reference Court selected sale-deed as good exemplars for reason that this sale deed was of land of adjoining village and no sale-deed of village prior to date of acquisition was available – After giving deduction of 20% towards largeness of area acquired, court determined market value of acquired land – Thus, amount of compensation determined by court on basis of sale deed of plot not inadequate – Sale-deed exemplar filed by claimant-appellants in evidence before court below reflects highest selling rate of very small piece of land which made basis by reference court to determine compensation of acquired land – Claimant-appellants are not entitled to compensation of their land acquired as was determined in case of Mangu and others (supra) with respect to land acquired.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
The controversy involved in the present first appeal is
"Whether compensation of land of Village Kakrala Khwaspur acquired on 5.1.1982, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be determined at the same rate i.e. Rs.297/- per Sq. yard, as was determined by the Division Bench in First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 (Mangu and others v. State of U.P. And others) decided on 3.12.2014 with respect to land of the same village acquired on 2.2.199, when some first appeals relating to the land acquisition dated 5.1.1982 were connected with the first appeal of Mangu & others (supra) and the Division Bench passed the judgment without being informed or without notice of this fact ?"
Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, Sri Girish Vishwakarma, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.2, NOIDA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. By notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') published on 5.1.1982, land measuring 284-18-18 Bighas of Village Kakrala Khawaspur, Pargan Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now Gautam Budhha Nagar) was acquired. Subsequently, the actual acquisition was made for land measuring 274-14-4 Bighas. Possession of the land was taken on 30.4.1982. The SLAO made the award on 7.9.1993 determining compensation @ Rs.23291.14 per Bigha, which comes to about Rs.9/- per square yard. Several references were made at the instance of claimants/land holders. Twenty such references have been decided by the impugned common judgment dated 17.8.1993 passed by IXth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad determining compensation @ Rs.20/- per square yard along with other statutory benefits and interest. The present appeal arises from the impugned judgment passed in LAR No.200 of 1984.
3. The Application No.6 of 2019 dated 28.1.2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 has been filed by the appellants to take in additional evidence the judgment dated 19.5.2010 in First Appeal No.1056 of 1999 (Raghuraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another), the judgment dated 13.3.2014 in First Appeal Defective No.773 of 2000 (Mahaveer Vs. The Chairman of Industrial Development Authority and others) and the judgment dated 3.12.2014 in First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 (Mangu and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which relate to land acquired in Village Bhangel Begumpur, Village Nagla Charandas and Kakrala Khawaspur respectively. The judgment in Mangu and others (supra) was passed in terms of the judgment in First Appeal No.1056 of 1999 (Raghuraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which relates to Village Bhangel Begumpur.
4. Another application dated 12.2.2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has been filed by the claimants-appellants to take in additional evidence the certified copy of the judgment dated 3.12.2014 in First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 (Mangu and others Vs State of U.P. and another) decided on 3.12.2014. In paragraphs 9 to 15 of the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid application dated 12.2.2019, the claimant-appellants have given particulars of first appeals connected with the case of Mangu and others (supra), as under:-
Sl. No.
LAR No.
First appeal no. & name of parties
Rate of compensation
per square yard (Rs.)1.
200 of 1984
D944 of 1994, Dharmpal Vs. State of U.P.
297/-
Note- connected with the first appeal of Mangu and others (supra)
2.
203 of 1984
D 914 of 1994, Shaukat and others Vs. State of
297/-
Note- connected with the first appeal of Mangu and others (supra)
3.
204 of 1984
D940 of 1994, Latif Vs. State of U.P.
297/-
Note- connected with the first appeal of Mangu and others (supra)
4.
205 of 1984
D902 of 1994, Md. Umar Vs. State of U.P.
297/-
Note- connec
