Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2712 (ALL)

CHHEDI LAL v. COLLECTOR, VARANASI

2009-07-30

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for enhancement of compensation awarded for the acquired land. 2. About 18/19 acres of land in village Daulatpur, Pargana Shivpur, district Varanasi was acquired by the State of U.P. for the benefit of Krishi Udpadan Mandi Samiti who is respondent No. 3 in this appeal. The notification proposing to acquire the aforesaid land under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12.7.1976 and was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 13.7.76. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked and the possession was taken over on 30.9.1976. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award under Section 11 of the Act on 15.11.77 awarding compensation at the market value of Rs. 461.54 per decimal. 3. In the said acquisition certain land recorded in the name of one Ram Narain and the claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal was also acquired. Ram Narain and Chhedi Lal demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per decimal in respect of their acquired land. Before the Special Land Acquisition Officer could make the award Ram Narain expired. Therefore, Form 11 in pursuance to the award was prepared in the name of the claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal with an endorsement that he is also the heir and legal representative of the deceased Ram Narain. Accordingly, entire compensation as per the award was paid to the claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal. The claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal was, however, not satisfied by the award and therefore, preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said reference has been decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.1980 passed by the District Judge and the claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal has been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 750/- per decimal. Still not satisfied, the claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal has come up in this appeal claiming enhancement to at least Rs.1000/- per decimal. 4. I have heard Sri Aditya Narain, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri B.D. Mandhyan for respondent No. 3, Krishi Udpadan Mandi Samiti. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued only two points. 4. I have heard Sri Aditya Narain, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri B.D. Mandhyan for respondent No. 3, Krishi Udpadan Mandi Samiti. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued only two points. First that the claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal is entitled to receive compensation in respect of the entire land which was recorded in his name and in the name of Ram Narain. Secondly, the market value of the acquired land has been proved to be more than Rs. 1000/- per decimal and, therefore, the rate of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 6. The reference application of the claimant/appellant is in respect of plot Nos. 42/1 area 21 decimal, 41/1 M area 28 decimal, 55 (2/3 share) area 55 decimal, 41/1 area 12 decimal and 108/2 area 3 decimal i.e. total five plots area 119 decimal (with 2/3 share in plot No. 55). A perusal of the judgment does not indicate that it has been passed in respect of any part of the above area mentioned in the reference application or that it is confined to the share of the claimant Chhedi Lal and further that he does not represent the estate/interest of the deceased Ram Narain. Therefore, the impugned judgment is in respect of the above area. There is no finding or any direction in the impugned judgment that the claimant/appellant is only entitled to part of compensation in respect of the above land or area or that he is not entitled to receive compensation in respect of the share of the deceased Ram Narain. Once the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per Form 11 has permitted the claimant/appellant Chhedi Lal to receive the share of compensation of the deceased Ram Narain as his heir and legal representative and the said compensation has been paid to him, it cannot be said that he is not entitled for the enhanced compensation as per the award in respect of the share of the deceased Ram Narain. However, as there is no finding in this regard by the reference Court, no specific order is required to be passed in appeal in this connection, except for clarifying the position, which has been done. 7. The above problem would not have arisen had the decree been drawn properly in accordance with settled principles. However, as there is no finding in this regard by the reference Court, no specific order is required to be passed in appeal in this connection, except for clarifying the position, which has been done. 7. The above problem would not have arisen had the decree been drawn properly in accordance with settled principles. The decree in land acquisition matters is required to contain the total area of the land involved in the reference and the total amount of compensation offered by the Collector and then the market value enhanced by the reference Court along with other details. However, all these aspects are completely lacking in the decree which has been drawn in the present case. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Collector Varanasi v. Ekram Shah, 1992 AWC 921 had deprecated the practice of drawing decrees in land acquisition matters in a casual manner and has observed that same unit of measurement of land throughout should be adopted and it is better to depict the land in square yards or square meters which is the smallest unit of the measurement of the area. It further provides that the decree in land acquisition cases must indicate the following particulars : (1) The total area of the land involved in the reference; (2) The rate and total amount of compensation offered by the Collector in respect of the land; (3) The rate and the amount at which enhancement of compensation is sought in the reference (difference of 3 and 2) will help in determining the valuation of the reference; (4) Rate per unit and the total amount awarded by the District Judge (difference of 4 and 3 will determine the enhancement made by the Court which will help in determining the costs to be awarded to the parties); (5) Compensation awarded for buildings, wells or trees etc. by the Court and by the Collector; (6) Proportionate amount of success and failure of the parties to the reference; (7) The rate and amount of solatium payable to the claimants; (8) The rate and period which interest is payable to the claimants; (9) Grand total. 9. In view of above, the Court expects that all decrees in land acquisition references must be drawn in accordance with the principles laid down above as have also been reiterated vide C.L.No. 4/VIIIb-164/Admn.(G) dated January 13, 1993. 10. 9. In view of above, the Court expects that all decrees in land acquisition references must be drawn in accordance with the principles laid down above as have also been reiterated vide C.L.No. 4/VIIIb-164/Admn.(G) dated January 13, 1993. 10. Sri Aditya Narain has placed reliance upon two sale deeds, paper No. 24-C dated 27.4.76 and paper No. 25-C dated 20.11.1975 for the purposes of enhancement of compensation. Under the first sale deed land having an area of 3810 square ft. situate in village Daulatpur was transferred and it is said that the said land adjoins the acquired land. By the other sale deed, comparatively a very small piece of land at the rate of 2117.60 per decimal was transferred. The reference Court discarded this exemplar on the ground that the sale consideration therein included the costs of the boundary wall. The land was surrounded by boundary wall and in the absence of evidence to show the costs of the boundary wall the exact value of the land was not determinable. Thus, keeping in mind the first exemplar and an earlier judgment and order passed in L.A.R. No. 9 of 1979 which also related to the same acquisition wherein compensation at the rate of Rs. 750/- per decimal was awarded, the District Judge awarded the same rate to the claimant/appellant also. It is not disputed at the Bar that the aforesaid judgment and order of the reference Court passed in L.A.R. No. 9 of 1979 is final and conclusive. Apart from the above, it is also submitted that from the same acquisition about 39 appeals were preferred by the State/Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and they have been dismissed by upholding the market value of Rs. 750/- per decimal. 11. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the market rate in respect of the same acquisition has already been fixed @ Rs. 750/- per square yard which has attained finality, there is no possible ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order to award any higher rate of compensation. 12. Thus, in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no scope for any enhancement. The appeal is dismissed with the observation as made in the earlier part. 13. No order as to costs. ————