Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3365 (ALL)

TEJVIR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-10-28

RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel for appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent though the case has been called in revised. In the circumstances, we proceed to hear and decide appeal ex parte. 2. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894") read with Section 96 of C.P.C. has arisen from award/judgment dated 23.5.2002 passed by Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, XIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as “LAR”) No. 29 of 1996. It has determined market value of acquired land at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard. Besides, it has also awarded 12% additional compensation under Section 23 (1-a) of Act 1894. Solarium and interest have also been awarded as per various provisions of statute, 3. The facts in brief are that at the instance of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “UPSIDC”), proceedings for acquisition of land at village Dev Saini, Tehsil Koel, District Aligarh were initiated for acquiring 174-1-4 Bigha (40.114 Hectare) of land. Notification under Section 4(1) of Act 1894 was published in Gazette dated 29.3.1989 and under Section 6(1) it was published on 30.9.1989. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SLAO”) made award dated 13.1.1991 determining market value of acquired land depending on nature of soil as under : fdLe tehu ijrk cUnh {ks=Qy nj@,dM izekf.kr izfrdj u0 lks;e 2-5 53&10&2 17]712-10 9]83]114-55 e0nks0vk0 5-37 53-5-17 37]154-06 19]80]032-74 e0nks0[kk0 4-81 22&4&4 33]279-52 7]39]138-14 e0lks0vk0 2-56 0&17&0 17]712-18 15]055-35 fp0 vkoh 4-44 5&18&18 30]719-56 1]82]627-78 fp0 [kkdh 3-19 33&4&12 22]071-04 7]33]420-66 ;ksx 171&0&03 46]33]389-23 Hkwfe ij fLFkr isMksa rFkk flpkbZ lk/kuksa dk ewY;kadu lEcfU/kr foHkkxksa djk;k x;k gS tks fuEu izdkj gS%& d bekjrh o`{kksa dk ewY;kadu foHkkx }kjk 12]316-00 [k Qynkj o`{kksa dk ewY;kadu ftyk m|ku vf/k0 1]49]90-283 x ts0bZ0 vkj0bZ0,l0 fodkl [k.M vf/kdkjh yks/kk }kjk 8]748-65 ;ksx 1]70]967-48 dqy ;ksx 48]04]356-71^^ Nature of land Parta Bandi Rate per Acre Certified compensation No-Soyam 2.5 53-10-2 17,712.10 9,83,114.55 M.Do.Aa. 5.37 53.5.17 37,154.06 19,80,032.74 M.Do.Kha. 4.81 22-4-4 33,279.52 7,39,138.14 M.So.Aa. 2.56 0-17-0 17,712.18 15,055.35 Chi.Abi. 4.44 5-18-18 30,719.56 1,82,627.78 Chi.Khaki. 3.19 33-4-12 22,071.04 7,33,420.66 Total 171-0-03 46,33,389.23 “Valuation of trees and irrigation means was got done by concerned department which is as under : a. Trees (Timber) Rs. 12,316/- b. Trees (Fruitful/Fructuous) (Valuation by District Horticulture Officer) Rs. 5.37 53.5.17 37,154.06 19,80,032.74 M.Do.Kha. 4.81 22-4-4 33,279.52 7,39,138.14 M.So.Aa. 2.56 0-17-0 17,712.18 15,055.35 Chi.Abi. 4.44 5-18-18 30,719.56 1,82,627.78 Chi.Khaki. 3.19 33-4-12 22,071.04 7,33,420.66 Total 171-0-03 46,33,389.23 “Valuation of trees and irrigation means was got done by concerned department which is as under : a. Trees (Timber) Rs. 12,316/- b. Trees (Fruitful/Fructuous) (Valuation by District Horticulture Officer) Rs. 1,49,902.83/- c. Valuation by J.E.R.S, Block Development Officer Lodha Rs. 6,748.65 Total 1,70,967-48 Grand otal 48,04,356-71" (English Translation by Court) 4. Aggrieved therewith, claimant appellant filed application under Section 18 for making reference to District Judge for determining market value of acquired land and pursuant thereto, Court below has passed impugned award dated 23.5.2002. Disputed land of appellant is plot No. 65 Khasra No. 389 Area 6 Bigha 4 Biswa 16 Biswansi. 5. Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel for appellant contended that in some matters involving this very acquisition proceedings, market value of some tenure holders has been determined between Rs. 70/- to 90 per sq. yard. In LAR No. 40 of 1993, market value at Rs. 70/- per sq. yard has been determined and in LAR No. 1 of 1993, market value at Rs. 90/- per sq. yard has been determined. Claimant appellant filed Paper No. 35 Ga with respect to LAR No. 33 of 1992 wherein award dated 23.2.1991 has been made determining market value at Rs. 90/- per sq. yard. 6. All these awards relate to same acquisition proceeding wherein notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 was issued on 29.3.1989 in respect of same village, therefore, claimant-appellant has relied upon aforesaid awards. 7. Court below has discarded aforesaid awards on the ground that awards have been made by Sub-ordinate Courts and not High Court, hence not binding and claimant-appellant ought to have made an application under Section 28 (a) of Act, 1894. Since no such application was moved by claimant-appellants, therefore, award made in other LARs in respect of same acquisition proceeding would not be relevant. 8. In our view, reasons assigned by Court below for discarding other awards made in respect of land acquired under same acquisition proceedings are patently erroneous and misconceived. If these awards pertain to same acquisition proceedings and, acquired land, which was subject-matter of LAR No. 29 of 1996 was also similarly placed, Court below should have considered those awards. 8. In our view, reasons assigned by Court below for discarding other awards made in respect of land acquired under same acquisition proceedings are patently erroneous and misconceived. If these awards pertain to same acquisition proceedings and, acquired land, which was subject-matter of LAR No. 29 of 1996 was also similarly placed, Court below should have considered those awards. The same have also been rejected wrongly on the ground that claimant-appellant has not filed application under Section 28A of Act, 1894. If proceedings of other LARs pertain to same acquisition proceeding which have been decided by Reference Courts, same should have been considered as valid and relevant material while deciding LAR No. 29 of 1996. 9. It is then contended by learned counsel for respondent UPSIDC that UPSIDC challenged similar award in LAR No. 690 of 2002 in appeal but the same has been dismissed by this Court holding market value of acquired land at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard. Hence, no enhancement of market value is now permissible at the instance of claimant-appellant. 10. It is true that one of awards in which market value was determined at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard was challenged at the instance of UPSIDC in LAR No. 690 of 2002 and said appeal has been dismissed by this Court but it does not mean that this Court has seized market value of acquired land at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard and the same cannot be enhanced. Dismissal of appeal of UPSIDC against award in LAR No. 690 of 2002, means that Court did not approve contention of UPSIDC that market value should have been lesser than Rs. 45/- per sq. yard. UPSIDC came to this Court, pleading that compensation should have been determined at a lesser rate, which has not been approved by this Court but dismissal of appeal of UPSIDC would not mean that Court has also approved the proposition that market value of acquired land cannot be and should not be higher than Rs. 45/- per sq. yard, since that was not the question involved in appeal preferred by UPSIDC. 11. 45/- per sq. yard, since that was not the question involved in appeal preferred by UPSIDC. 11. Thus the mere fact that appeal of UPSIDC has been dismissed, would not mean that market value determined by Reference Court cannot be considered for enhancement in the light of other awards which have been made in respect of acquired land which was subject-matter of same acquisition proceedings, as is the case in this appeal. It is also not in dispute that acquired land of appellant is similarly placed with the land acquired and was subject-matter of adjudication in LARs No. 33 of 1992, 1 of 1993 and 40 of 1993. 12. In the light of above discussion and considering the fact that exemplar awards relied by appellant had been rejected for wholly illegal and invalid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that impugned award of the judgment dated 23.5.2002 cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. We set aside impugned award/judgment dated 23.5.2002, and direct Reference Court to decide the matter again considering awards in other LARs including LAR No. 1 of 1993 (Paper No. 35 GA) filed by appellant. Reference Court shall pass fresh award expeditiously but in any case not beyond six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.