Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3674 (ALL)

KULJEET SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-12-09

DINESH MAHESHWARI, YASHWANT VARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—The petitioners are said to be the persons interested in the land comprised in Gata No. 240 at village Dibdiba, Pargana Bilaspur, District Rampur, that had been acquired under the notifications dated 8.4.1991 and 13.11.1991, issued respectively under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act of 1894’). By way of this writ petition, the petitioners essentially seek directions to the respondents to make the award in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act of 2013’) with reference to Section 24 thereof with the assertion that in their case, the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has not been made. 2. The relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: In the year 1981, there had been a proposal for acquisition of certain parcels of land situated at village Dibdiba, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur for the purpose of New Broad Gauge Railway Line between Rampur-Haldwani. At that stage, the petitioners had the grievance that about 2 acres of their land comprised in Gata No. 240 was sought to be taken over without acquisition and, therefore, they instituted a civil suit bearing No. 176 of 1987, which was decreed by the Civil Judge, Rampur on 19.4.1988 and the respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession of petitioners over the said 2 acres of land of Gata No. 240. 3. Thereafter, on 8.4.1991, the Government of U.P. issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 (Annexure-4) expressing intention to acquire, amongst other, the said land of Gata No. 240, which was followed by the declaration dated 13.11.1991 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 (Annexure-5). Further, the District Land Acquisition Officer(‘the DLAO’) issued a notice to the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 on 13.10.1992 (Annexure-6) expressing intention to make the award in relation to the land in question and inviting their claims. The petitioners submitted their claims/objections, inter alia, to the effect that the land had been taken over for the purpose of a railway line but there were building and trees standing on the land wherefor too, they were required to be paid compensation. The petitioners submitted their claims/objections, inter alia, to the effect that the land had been taken over for the purpose of a railway line but there were building and trees standing on the land wherefor too, they were required to be paid compensation. The petitioners have also placed on record a communication dated 22.11.1992 (Annexure-8) from the Executive Engineer (Constructions), North Eastern Railway, Rampur to the DLAO stating, inter alia, that the compensation towards the building standing on the land be also awarded; and another communication dated 20.10.1993 (Annexure-9) from the Inspector Works(Constructions), North Eastern Railway, Rudrapur to the DLAO to the effect that about 125 guava fruit trees were also destroyed in executing the work and compensation for such trees may also be awarded. 4. According to the petitioners, the DLAO made a part award on 27.5.1994 in respect of 2 acres of land of Gata No. 240 but did not award any compensation in respect of building and trees standing on the land in question. At the request of petitioners, a reference came to be made under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 in Reference Case No. 119 of 1994, which was considered and decided by the Second Additional District Judge, Rampur on 9.8.1999. Copy of the decision so rendered in the reference case has not been placed on record in this petition. Be that as it may, the proceedings further had been that the petitioners preferred an appeal, being First Appeal No. 911 of 1999 in this Court which was decided on 23.1.2003 (Annexure-12) and the matter was remanded to the subordinate reference Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of remand, the reference Court decided the said reference case (No. 119 of 1994) afresh, by its judgment dated 11.9.2003 (Annexure-13) while recording its finding on issue No. 3 that the petitioners were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- for the building standing on the land in question; and further, on issue No. 4, that the petitioners were also entitled to compensation towards the trees standing on the land in question. 5. 70,000/- for the building standing on the land in question; and further, on issue No. 4, that the petitioners were also entitled to compensation towards the trees standing on the land in question. 5. From the submissions made in the petition, it appears that against the aforesaid judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Rampur dated 11.9.2003, the petitioners have preferred an appeal, being First Appeal No. 1085 of 2003; and the State of U.P. has also preferred an appeal, being First Appeal No. 346 of 2006. 6. After stating the aforesaid facts the petitioners have referred to the definition of “land” occurring in clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act of 1894 and the requirement of “award” per Section 11 thereof; and have submitted that for the purpose of a complete award, the land and building constitute one unit and the value of the entire unit ought to be determined with all its advantages and potentialities. The petitioners have, thereafter, referred to the provisions of the Act of 2013 and have contended with reference to Section 24 (1)(a) thereof that no award as envisaged under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 having been made till date, the provisions of Act of 2013 shall apply relating to the determination of compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that complete and composite award in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 having not been made, the matter falls within the purview of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. Learned counsel has further submitted that the land, building and other things appurtenant to the land form one unit and ought to have been considered for the purpose of award of compensation; and the award having not been made as required by law, the same is required to be now made in terms of the Act of 2013. 8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that the submissions on behalf of the petitioners remain totally bereft of substance; and this writ petition does not merit admission. 9. A comprehension of factual aspects narrated hereinabove makes it clear that in relation to the acquisition proceedings in question, an award was indeed made and aggrieved thereagainst, the petitioners took up the reference proceedings which were decided in the first place on 9.8.1999. 9. A comprehension of factual aspects narrated hereinabove makes it clear that in relation to the acquisition proceedings in question, an award was indeed made and aggrieved thereagainst, the petitioners took up the reference proceedings which were decided in the first place on 9.8.1999. However, the matter was remanded by this Court by the order dated 23.1.2003. Thereafter, the reference Court decided the reference proceedings partly in favour of the petitioners in the judgment dated 11.9.2003 and, inter alia, held them entitled to compensation towards the building and trees too, apart from allowing them compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre. From the submissions as made in the writ petition, it is also clear that the petitioners as also the State have preferred respective appeals against this judgment of the reference Court. 10. The petitioners seek applicability of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 with reference to the fact that the award was not made for building and trees standing on the land in question. The submissions turn out to be hollow and baseless on a bare look at the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, which read as under: “24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),- (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) Where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. ............ ............. ............. ........... ” 11. As noticed, in the present case, the award had indeed been made and then reference proceedings were also taken up which were decided once on 9.8.1999 and again, after remand on 11.9.2003; and appeals have been preferred, being First Appeal Nos. 1085 of 2003 and 346 of 2006 in this Court. 12. ............ ............. ............. ........... ” 11. As noticed, in the present case, the award had indeed been made and then reference proceedings were also taken up which were decided once on 9.8.1999 and again, after remand on 11.9.2003; and appeals have been preferred, being First Appeal Nos. 1085 of 2003 and 346 of 2006 in this Court. 12. The submissions on behalf of the petitioners are rather too far stretched when it is sought to be suggested that the compensation for building and trees having not been allowed, it cannot be termed to be an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. 13. Under Section 23 of the Act of 1894, the compensation is to be determined by taking into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 thereof; and the damage, if any, sustained by the persons interested under any of the items enumerated therein. In the scheme of the Act of 1894, per Section 18 thereof, any person interested, who has not accepted the award, could make a request for reference, which was indeed made in the present case. 14. As noticed from the judgment of the reference Court dated 11.9.2003, issue No. 3 had been in relation to the compensation for the alleged building on the land in question; and issue No. 4 had been for the compensation towards the standing trees. The reference Court has allowed compensation on those counts. Yet dissatisfied, the petitioners and the State have filed appeals in this Court. Of course, the amount of compensation would be finally determined in the appeals but for the present purpose, suffice it to say that it is not a case where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made at all. The correctness or otherwise of the award or accepting a part or no part of the award by any person interested; or, for that matter, seeking any enhancement over the amount awarded in the award under Section 11 of the Act, are all the matters different and are to be processed in accordance with law but so far clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 is concerned, the same can have no application to the present case where the award has indeed been made and has further been subjected to the reference proceedings and appeals. Merely for raising any question suggestive of deficiency in the award in relation to any item or its quantum, the petitioners cannot suggest that ‘no’ award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made. 15. We may observe in other words that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 envisages such nature cases where no award at all has been made. For any alleged deficiency in the award, in relation to any item or in relation to the quantum of compensation, it cannot be said that “no” award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made. The award has indeed been made and, therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 does not apply to the present case. 16. To sum up, we are clearly of the view that the present one is not a case where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made as envisaged by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The present case is clearly covered under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 where the award has been made under Section 11 of the Act of 1894; and hence, the proceedings shall continue under the Act of 1894 as if the said Act has not been repealed. 17. In view of the above, it is apparent that the present writ petition remains entirely groundless and no case for interference is made out. 18. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. ——————