Compensation for acquired land must reflect its market value and potential use, not just current use, as established under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

1. Heard Sri Avinash Chandra, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Patel, Learned Counsel for the respondent representing U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The aforesaid two appeals have been filed against the order dated 15.10.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Municipal Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2006 (Krishan Kumar Kalra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 has been filed by U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board, Lucknow through its Chief Executive Officer (U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Vs Krishna Kumar Kalra & Another), hereinafter referred as Respondents and First Appeal No. 28 of 2010 has been filed by Krishna Kumar Kalra (Krishan Kumar Kalra Vs U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board & Another), hereinafter referred as Claimants. During pendency of the appeal, Krishna Kumar Kalra died and as such, his legal heirs are substituted on the record. Since both the Appeals have been filed against the same order dated 15.10.2009, hence the same are being decided by this common order.

3. The adumbrated facts of the case are that admittedly, a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 14.01.2003 acquiring 5600 sq. ft. of land bearing Plot No. 3-B, situated at Peerpur House, 8, Tilak Marg, Lucknow. Thereafter a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 19.02.2004. The award was pronounced on 19.01.2006 whereby the Collector awarded Rs. 640/- per sq. ft. as price of the land on which 30% solatium was granted and in addition compensation @ 12% was awarded in the award dated 19.01.2006.

4. Being aggrieved with the award dated 19.01.2006, the claimant filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In his Reference, the claimant claimed that the Land Acquisition Officer erred in arriving the market value of the land and the method of arriving at such price was also wrong. He claimed that out of total land only 5600 sq. ft. land has been acquired, and, therefore, he is also entitled to compensation for injuries due to severance. He stated that the appellant is entitled for compensation at market value as per the provision of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further stated that because of location of the plot it has commercial value. The frontage of the land acquired is 70 sq. ft. Adjacent to the plot in question, Narmada Bhawan, which is office of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizer Corporation, is situated. He further claimed that after 2-3 plots, U.P. Ganna Sanasthan is established in which there is a huge Auditorium. Apart from the aforesaid the Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce is also located in the compound of Ganna Sansthan. From, one end to the other there are several important buildings of various offices such as M/s. Amadeus, M/s. Biotech & Pharmaceutical, M/s. Pritam Pharma, Jolly Star Tech, M/s. Aventis Pharma Limited etc. On the other side of the land various multistoried buildings and hospital are situated on the same road.

5. It has been informed by the Learned Counsel for the claimant during course of argument, which fact is not disputed by the respondent, that Butler Palace Colony, which is the official residence of State Government officials, Dalibagh Officers Colony, Vidhayak Niwas and VVIP (Nemisharan) Guest House, VIP Guest House, official resident of the Learned District Judge, Lucknow, office of Dainik Jagran the famous daily news, Times of India, Amar Ujala are located within 100 to 500 meters in the vicinity of the plot in question.

6. In the Reference the claimant claimed that the plot in question has a commercial value and is of very high potential and as such, he is entitled for commercial value of the plot in question and claimed that a compensation @ Rs.890/- per sq. ft. should have been awarded to hi