IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra, JJ.
Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority - Appellants
Vs.
Amir Kuwar and Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 264 of 2012 and 3 of 2016
Decided On : 01-07-2019
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Appellant in both these appeals and Advocate, for respondents in First Appeal, In First Appeal names of three counsel appear for respondents as shown in cause list, one of whom has sought adjournment on ground of illness, but no reason has been assigned as to why other counsel are not present despite case having been called in revised. In such circumstances, we find no justification to adjourn this matter and proceed to decide present appeals after hearing above mentioned learned counsel appearing for respective parties –Held, We do not find any manifest error in both the judgments as well as awards of Reference Court. Since the points for determinations have rightly been answered against appellants, we do not find any merit in these appeals – Appeal dismissed. (Para’s 117, 118)
Facts of The case :
Appellant in both these appeals and Advocate, for respondents in First Appeal, In First Appeal names of three counsel appear for respondents as shown in cause list, one of whom has sought adjournment on ground of illness, but no reason has been assigned as to why other counsel are not present despite case having been called in revised. In such circumstances, we find no justification to adjourn this matter and proceed to decide present appeals after hearing above mentioned learned counsel appearing for respective parties.
Finding of The Court:
We do not find any manifest error in both the judgments as well as awards of Reference Court. Since the points for determinations have rightly been answered against appellants, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Sri B. Dayal, Advocate for appellant in both these appeals and Sri M.C. Singh, Advocate, for respondents in First Appeal No. 3 of 2016.
2. In First Appeal No. 264 of 2012, names of three counsel appear for respondents as shown in the cause list, one of whom namely Sri D.K. Mishra has sought adjournment on the ground of illness, but no reason has been assigned as to why other counsel are not present despite the case having been called in revised. In such circumstances, we find no justification to adjourn this matter and proceed to decide present appeals after hearing above mentioned learned counsel appearing for respective parties.
3. Both these appeals arise from two similar but separate Awards of Reference Courts under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1894"), and have been filed under Section 54 of the said Act. Since they involve common and similar questions of facts and law, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. Appeal No. 264 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appeal-1') is a defendant's appeal arising from judgment and Award dated 10.5.2010 and decree dated 31.5.2010, passed by Sri Sushil Kumar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court') adjudicating Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as 'LAR') No. 184 of 2001 (Smt. Amir kuwar v. State of U.P.), determining market value of the acquired land for the purpose of payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,50,000/- per Pakka Bigha (Rs. 281/- per sq-yard) and Rs. 3,54,783/- towards cost of the trees. Reference Court has also awarded other statutory dues like 12% additional compensation, 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of possession and for subsequent period at the rate of 15%.
5. Appeal No. 3 of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Appeal-2") is also a defendant's appeal arising from judgment and Award dated 24.9.2015 and decree dated 6.10.2015, passed by Sri Rajat Singh Jain, Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in LAR No. 1 of 2006, determining market value for the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,50,000/- per Pakka Bigha (Rs. 281/- per sq-yards) besides other dues like 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation and interest as per various provisions of the Statute. This Award has been delivered following earlier Award dated 10.5.2010, passed in LAR No. 184 of 2001, which is subject of Appeal-1.
Appeal-1
6. Facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are, that, Bulandshahr Khurj a Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "BKDA") is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of U.P. Urban and Planning Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1973") for undertaking development in the area notified under Act 1973 of District Bulandshahr at Khurja. For the purpose of construction of residential and commercial building, BKDA proposed acquisition of land in village Akbarpur. The proposed scheme was named as 'Yamunapuram Avasiya Yojna, first phase'. It proposed acquisition of 61.801 acres (299116.84 sq-yard or 98.88 Bigha) land.
7. A notification dated 20.12.1988 under Section 4 of Act 1894 was published in U.P. Gazette on 20.12.1988. Notification dated 18.1.1989 making declaration under Section 6 of Act 1894 was published in U.P. Gazette dated 18.1.1989. Possession of land was taken on 19.5.1989 and Award was published by Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") on 4.4.1991. The said Award, however, did not include Gatas No. 363 area 5-0-11; 385 area 10-0-11; 375 area 0-4-0 i.e. 3 plots of total area 18-5-2 for the reason that respondent Smt. Amir Kunwar Devi in appeal-1 had filed Writ Petition No. 3317 of 1989, challenging acquisition Notifications and therein, an interim ord
Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini
U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar
Lal Chand v. Union of India and another
Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector
R. Sai Ram Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha
Kausalya Devi Bogra and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another
Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi
V.M. Salgoacar & brother Ltd. v. Union of India
Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others v. State of Maharashtra
Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority
Viluben Jhalenjar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarat
Basavva (Smt.) and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others
D. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village v. Nookala Rajamallu and others
Udho Dass v. State of Haryana and others
Anjani Molu Desai v. State of Goa and another
Nelson Fernandes and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others
Special Land Acquisition Office v. Karigowdo and others
Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana
Union of India v. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (dead) through legal representatives and others
Shaji Kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others
Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana
Valliyammal and others v. Special Land Acquisition
Bhupal Singh and others v. State of Haryana
Chandrashekhar v. L.A. Officer
K. Devakimma and others v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and another
Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust
Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi
Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu and others
Atina Singh v. State of Haryana and another
Andhra Pradesh Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy and others
Special Land Acquisition Officer and another v. M.K. Rafiq Sahib
Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana
Major General Kapil Mehra and others v. Union of India and another
Power Grid Corporation v. State of U.P. and others
Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and others v. K.S. Gangadharappa and another
State of U.P. v. Major Jitendra Kumar and others
Bijender and others v. State of Haryana and others
Trishala Jain and another v. State of Uttranchal and another
Union of India and others v. Mangatu Ram
Wazir and others v. State of Haryana
Harayana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others
Harayana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Udal and another
Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh
Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ramanjulu
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.