Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1399 (ALL)

Lucknow Development Authority v. Faijaz Ahmad

2010-04-28

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - Heard Sri Rajesh Srivastava holding brief of Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. D.K. Uppadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel is taken on record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2006 and decree dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 22 of 1999 (Faijaz Ahmad & others Vs State of U.P. and another) filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.0.68 per sq. ft. to Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, in addition to grounds taken in the appeal, has submitted that enhancement of the amount of compensation by the learned Tribunal was done without properly considering the relevant factors and it has been exorbitantly increased. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the land of the respondents bearing Khasra No. 772, area 1-2-0-0 situated in village Behsa, Pargana, Bijnore, District Lucknow was acquired under the Scheme "Kanpur Road City Extension Scheme Part-I" in the year 1976. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the market rate to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 0.68 per sq. ft. vide award dated 27.09.1979. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the respondents filed a Reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 1999. 6. During the pendency of reference petition, the respondent no.2 had died and the respondent Nos. 2/1 to to 2/7 were substituted in his place as legal heirs. The Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 14.02.2006 decided the reference petition and enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 0.68 per sq. ft to Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. 7. While deciding the said reference, the learned Tribunal had relied upon its decision passed in the case of Sri Abdul Samad in which the land was situated in the same village as respondents, it was acquired by the same notification and the compensation was awarded by the same award. 0.68 per sq. ft to Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. 7. While deciding the said reference, the learned Tribunal had relied upon its decision passed in the case of Sri Abdul Samad in which the land was situated in the same village as respondents, it was acquired by the same notification and the compensation was awarded by the same award. In the case of Abdul Samad the learned Tribunal has held that the market value of the land in question is at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. It is further submitted that against the judgment passed in the case of Abdul Samad, the appellant had filed First Appeal No. 15 of 2005 (Lucknow Development Authority Vs Abdul Samad) before this Court, which has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 12.11.2007. 8. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that while deciding the case of present respondents, the learned Tribunal had also considered the fact that the land of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, which was also situated in the same village as the respondents, was also acquired under the same scheme and by same notification. Smt. Nageshwari Devi had filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award dated 27.09.1979 , registered as Misc. Case No. 257 of 1982, it was decided by the judgment and order dated 31.05.1984. In that case also learned Tribunal has held the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3.00 per sq. ft. Against the judgement and order dated 31.05.1984 passed in the case of Smt Nageshwari Devi, State had filed First Appeal No. 76 of 1988 which was dismissed by this Court on 26.09.1984 and enhancement of the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.3.00 per sq. ft was confirmed. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that along with the land of respondents the land of so many other persons of the village Behsa was acquired under the same scheme and they also filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award of SLAO dated 27.09.1979. In all those cases learned Tribunal had determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.3.00 per sq. ft. and the appellants did not prefer to file the appeal against the judgment and order passed in their cases. In all those cases learned Tribunal had determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.3.00 per sq. ft. and the appellants did not prefer to file the appeal against the judgment and order passed in their cases. During the execution proceedings, the appellant made full payment of compensation of the land at the rate of Rs.3.00 per sq. ft. and satisfied the decree passed by the learned Tribunal. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents gave example of Misc Case No. 23 of 1999 and Misc Case No. 30 of 1998 of Sri Girdhari and Sri Bhairaon Das, who have been paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. at the time of execution proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact that the appeals filed by the appellants in the case of Abdul Samad and in the case of Smt Nageshwari Devi who were similar situated, have been dismissed by this Court, and the rate of compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. has been confirmed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted before this Court that with respect to the same notification and same award relating to the land situated in village Behsa, as in the case of respondents, the appellant had entered into agreements with some land owners for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. 12. The Tribunal, while dealing with the controversy, had framed issues covering all the points put forth before it for adjudication. The Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant factors which were necessary for assessing the market value and the quantum of compensation admissible to the land owners. Tribunal has dealt with various exemplars and had also taken into account the location of the land. The land in dispute was having all the necessary civic amenities and was well connected with the Highway as well as easily approachable. The exemplars which had been cited were taken into account. Scrutinising these facts in the light of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 1558 , Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bangalkot Vs. Mohd. The exemplars which had been cited were taken into account. Scrutinising these facts in the light of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 1558 , Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bangalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, it is amply clear that the Tribunal had carefully appreciated various factors and passed a well considered, reasoned and a speaking judgment, which in my opinion, does not require any interference. 13. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the market value fixed by the learned Tribunal with respect to the land in question was just and proper and was as per the market rate prevailing at that time. There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 14. The respondents-claimants shall be entitled to get the amount of compensation as per the judgment and order dated 14.02.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 22 of 1999, (Faijaj Ahmad and others Vs State of U.P. and others). 15. The amount deposited, if any, in this court shall permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-claimants. 16. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.