Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti - Appellant
Versus
Kanahaiya and Others - Respondent
First Appeal No. 659, 53, 59, 109, 548, 550, 551, 660, 661, 686 & 687 of 2014
Decided On : 03-12-2018
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Condonation of Delay – Cross objections – Challenging Order – Whether delay occur – Sale transaction – Market value under challenged – Held, Mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood – The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is up to four to five years – Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land – This is because, over the course of years, the `rate’ of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase – Court do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned judgment whereby the market value of the acquired land has been determined on the basis of the fair market value determined in the acquisition made for the adjacent land acquired for U.P. Awas Vikas Parisahd, granting escalation in price @ 10% per annum – Therefore, all these First Appeals deserve to be dismissed – There is some calculation error in the impugned judgment – Be that as it may, if the parties finds that there is some calculation error while computing price per sq. meter it is open for them to approach the court below for rectification, provided such mistake is apparent on record – Appeals and cross objections are dismissed. (Para 19,20,21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
In all these appeals cross objections alongwith delay condonation applications and the Misc. Applications have been filed by the claimants-respondents. Facts and grounds for delay condonation in all the objections are similar. Under the circumstances, the delay condonation application filed alongwith cross objection in leading First Appeal.
Findings of the case:
Mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood – The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is up to four to five years – Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land – This is because, over the course of years, the `rate’ of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase – Court do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned judgment whereby the market value of the acquired land has been determined on the basis of the fair market value determined in the acquisition made for the adjacent land acquired for U.P. Awas Vikas Parisahd, granting escalation in price @ 10% per annum – Therefore, all these First Appeals deserve to be dismissed – There is some calculation error in the impugned judgment – Be that as it may, if the parties finds that there is some calculation error while computing price per sq. meter it is open for them to approach the court below for rectification, provided such mistake is apparent on record.
Result: Appeals and cross objections are dismissed.
1. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the Cross Objectors-claimants/respondents and Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants On Delay Condonation Applications, Civil Misc. Applications,Cross Objections and appeals.
2. In all these appeals cross objections alongwith delay condonation applications and the Misc. Applications have been filed by the claimants-respondents. Facts and grounds for delay condonation in all the objections are similar. Under the circumstances, the delay condonation application filed alongwith cross objection in leading First Appeal No. 659 of 2014 is reproduced below:
“1. That the deponent is the pairokar of the claimant-respondent in the above cross objection and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed to below.
2. That the appellant filed the present appeal as defective appeal before this Hon’ble Court.
3. That the delay in filing the appeal as condoned by this Hon’ble Court on 14.11.2013 and the Hon’ble Court was thereafter pleased to admit the present appeal.
4. That the claimant-applicant after admission of the appeal collected papers relating to the reference Court and came to Allahabad on 05.01.2014 for seeking advise about future course of action.
5. That in the conference of the deponent with the local counsel at Moradabad namely Sri Raju Sultan Advocate and with the counsel at Allahabad Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate the claimant-applicant decided to file the cross objections for remaining amount that was not awarded by the reference Court in its award dated 20.05.2013.
6. That upon instruction given by the claimant-applicant to the counsel present cross objections were drafted and are now being filed without any further delay.
7. That the delay if any is not deliberate. Prior to 05.01.2014 the claimant-applicant was not aware of the fact that he can prefer cross objections for the remaining amount and as such could not approach this Hon’ble Court earlier for instituting the present cross objections.
8. That the claimant will suffer irreparably if the delay in filing the cross objections is not condoned and the cross objections are not considered and decided on merits.
9. That under such circumstances it will be necessary in the interest of justice that the delay in filing the present cross objections may be condoned by this Hon’ble Court and the cross objections may be considered and decided on merits.”
3. Perusal of the Delay Condonation Application as aforequoted, clearly shows that the Cross Objectors have not offered any explanation for delay for the period subsequent to 5.1.2014 till 24.2.2016. Thus, the long delay of 2 years and 73 days in filing all the cross objections filed in aforenoted First Appeals are wholly unexplained. Under the circumstances, all the Delay Condonation applications for condonation of delay in filing cross objections in the aforenoted First Appeals are hereby rejected. Consequently, all the Civil Misc. Applications and Cross Objections in all the aforenoted First Appeals also stand rejected.
On Appeals
4. Facts in all these First Appeals are common. All the First Appeals arise from the common judgment dated 20.5.2013, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Moradabad. Acquisition was made under one and the same Notification from which the references arose. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties all these First Appeals are being heard together. Paper book has been filed by the appellants in the connected First Appeal No.53 of 2014.
Facts
5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that by Notification No.516/12-5-87-600(103)-86, dated 1.5.1987, land measuring 23.525 acres of Village - Amroha, Tahsil - Amroha, District - Moradabad was acquired for construction of Krishi Utpadan Mandi. Notification under Section 6
SupremeToday
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
