Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 2622
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Not Mentioned, J
U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar Kalra – Respondent
First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 | First Appeal No. 28 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Avinash Chandra
For the Respondents: Sri Pankaj Patel
Court determined that compensation awarded for land acquisition must reflect market value, considering highest and best use and evidentiary support from similar sales.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 23 - Compensation for land acquisition - Controversy over market value of land and appropriateness of awarded compensation - Claimant contended inadequacy of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer - Reference Court enhanced price but not adequately based on evidence of market values presented - Proper evidence of prospective value and comparable sales must guide compensation determinations. (Paras 12, 41, 44)
(B) Market Value - Definition and determination of market value should consider highest and best use of land, comparison with similar sales, and established uses in the vicinity. (Para 20, 35)
Facts of the case:
The appeals derive from land acquisition for establishing a Guidance Centre, contested over propriety of compensation level - Claimant argued for higher compensation based on surrounding commercial potential while respondent opposed based on land's residential designation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that compensation was inadequate and modified it to Rs. 1,000/- per sq. ft., granting applicable solatium and interest rates as prescribed under the Act.
Issues: Key issues included adequacy of compensation and the actual potential market value of the land in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the need for a reliable method to assess the market value of acquired land based on comprehensive evidence of similar sales and appropriate precedent.
Result: First Appeal No. 28 of 2010 allowed with compensation modification; First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and overview of appeals (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. circumstances of land acquisition (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. tribunal's findings on compensation (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. arguments presented by claimant and respondent (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court's rationale for compensation adjustment (Para 32 , 39 , 41) |
| 6. final ruling on compensation (Para 44) |
1. Heard Sri Avinash Chandra, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Patel, Learned Counsel for the respondent representing U.P. Khadi and 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 v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . First Appeal No. 4 of 2010 has been filed by U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Lucknow through its Chief Executive Officer (U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board v. Krishna Kumar Kalra and Another), hereinafter referred as Respondents and First Appeal No. 28 of 2010 has been filed by Krishna Kumar Kalra (Krishan Kumar Kalra v. U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board and 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 S.4 read with S.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 S.6 of the 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 S.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 S.23 of the . 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 and 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.
