Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1216 (ALL)

Lucknow Development Authority v. Ram Sevak

2010-04-15

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant as well as Sri V.K. Srivastava learned counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. This first appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2007 and decree dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika/Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Lucknow in respect to reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Misc. Case No. 434 of 1993 (Ram Sevak & another Vs State of U.P.), wherein the amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. from Rs. 0.85 per sq. ft. for the land situated at Khasra No.1 in village Bharvara, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the land in question was acquired by the State Government for the Ujariaon Avasiya Yozna Part-2. The land of the respondents/claimants measuring 5-3-12-0 situated at village Bharvara, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lucknow was acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation for the said land at the rate of Rs. 0.85 per sq. ft. However, the learned Tribunal without any reasonable basis has enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. which was much more than the market value of the land at that time. 4. Sri V.K. Srivastava learned counsel for respondents/claimants at the very outset submitted that the controversy involved in the present appeal has been settled by the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals filed by the L.D.A. relating to the same scheme, arising out of the same notifications issued by the State Government for acquisition of land and against the same award. 5. In this regard Sri V.K. Srivastava placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 103 of 2007 (Lucknow Development Authority Vs Smt. Raj Kumari & another) and other connected First Appeals. In first Appeal No. 103 of 2007 this court has held as under:- " As far as the merits of the case are concerned, this Court has viewed these judgments in the light of a recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. In first Appeal No. 103 of 2007 this court has held as under:- " As far as the merits of the case are concerned, this Court has viewed these judgments in the light of a recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. and other relevant factors which are relevant for determining the amount of compensation such as potentiality, location and situation of land, developments made in the area and facilities provided etc. It is of the view that on the merits also no case is made out to interfere." 6. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that in First Appeal No. 13 of 2005 (L.D.A vs Naththa & others), this court by the judgment and order dated 30.03.2009 has been pleased to hold that the compensation awarded to the claimants as determined under the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was adequate just and proper. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that the land of the respondents/claimants which was acquired relates to the same notifications and the same award. 8. I have considered the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In First Appeal No. 13 of 2005 and First Appeal No. 103 of 2007, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. from Rs.1.41 per sq. ft. In the present appeal the amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. from Rs. 0.85 per sq. ft. It is admitted fact that the land of the respondents/claimants relates to the same scheme, same notifications issued by the State Government for acquisition of land and against the same award regarding which the First Appeal No. 103 of 2007 and other connected First appeals as well as First Appeal no. 13 of 2005 have been decided whereas the enhancement of the compensation @ Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. has been confirmed as just and proper. 9. 13 of 2005 have been decided whereas the enhancement of the compensation @ Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. has been confirmed as just and proper. 9. The learned Tribunal while deciding the question of amount of compensation for the land in question had relied upon its decision dated 11.12.2006 in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs State of U.P. & others, a copy of which was filed as Exhibit 41-Ga by the claimants, wherein the learned Tribunal with respect to the land situated at village Bharvara had come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation shall be enhanced to Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. The land of the respondents/claimants belongs to the same village i. e. Bharvara, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the amount of compensation for of the respondents/claimant shall be enhanced at the rate of Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. 10. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation enhanced by the learned tribunal was just and proper and as per the market rate prevailing at that time. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The present appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The respondents/claimants shall be liable to get the amount of compensation as per the decision of the learned Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 434 of 1993 (Ram Sevak & another Vs State of U.P. & others). 11. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.