The determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act should be based on the circle rates notified by the Collector, and the amount of compensation cannot be lesser than the amount notified by the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This First Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been preferred by the Union of India, through its Commanding Officer, DET C Vikas, Establishment No. 22 C/O 56 APO, where the appellant herein, had put a challenge to the judgement and award, which was rendered by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in a Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, allowing the Section 18 reference of the Land Acquisition Act, which was arising out of an award which was rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 10.04.2020, as rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1995-96, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Dehradun and another.

2. Before I venture to meet the arguments which has been extended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, it would not be out of context to refer that the learned District Judge, Dehradun, has decided the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by the impugned judgement which is under challenge in the Appeal i.e. dated 27.11.2008, and as would be apparent therein from the cause title of the judgement that two land acquisition cases, being Land Acquisition Case No. 99 of 2000, Smt. Krishna Kochhar Vs. State and another and Land Acquisition Case No. 100 of 2000, Sh. Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, had been decided together by the common judgement, of the reference proceedings.

3. The appellant therein, as against the judgement, which was rendered in relation to the Acquisition Reference No. 99 of 2000, had preferred a First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, Union of India Vs. Smt. Krishna Kochhar and Another, which came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of this Court and the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgement dated 27.12.2016, had dismissed the said Appeal and the point of determination about the proportionality of the amount of compensation payable, and which was awarded by the Reference Court and the entitlement for the award of compensation, was decided in favour of the land looser i.e. the applicant to the reference proceedings, therein in Land Acquisition Case No. 99 of 2000.

4. For the purposes of convenience the records of the First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, was summoned by this Court, from the Registry and on the perusal of the record, it has revealed that being aggrieved against the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court, which was rendered on 27.12.2016, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) 37016 of 2017, was preferred by the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the same has been dismissed by the judgement dated 05.01.2018.

5. The brief case, which engages consideration in the present First Appeal are that, a land acquisition proceedings, was initiated by issuance of a Notification No.3560 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published on 17.01.1997, and was also simultaneously published in the two local newspapers on 07.03.1997. Subsequent thereto, a Notification no. 3001 under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 18.11.1997, and it was also simultaneously published in the local newspapers on 21.01.1998 and 22.01.1998.

6. Subsequent to the publication of the aforesaid Notification No. 3001 under Section 6 of the Act, there was an amended notification No. 3037, which was notified by the State which was issued under Section 4(1) on 20.11.2000, and the fact of the possession of the land having been taken over on 19.01.2020, and the award having been rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 10.04.2000, are the facts which are not disputed.

7. In the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, with which we are concerned, in the present Appeal, the contention of the respondents/claimants, was that the amount of compensation, as has been determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 10.04.2000, is too inadequate and he contended tha