Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3682 (ALL)

DULEY RAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-10

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Pankaj Agrawal and Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ramesh Upadhyay assisted by Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent - NOIDA and learned standing counsel for the State- respondents. FACTS : 2. All these first appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The lands belonging to the claimants situated in village Gijore, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gutam Buddh Nagar (the then District Ghaziabad), which was acquired for NOIDA for planned industrial development by a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued on 20.2.1990 followed by corrigendum published on 26.7.1990. Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act, was published on 12.6.1990 followed by corrigendum dated 14.9.1990. Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of land for payment of compensation @ Rs. 50/- per square yard by award dated 30.7.1992. At the instance of claimants, various references were made. 3. By the impugned judgment, the reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 126/- per square yard alongwith other benefits under the Act. Similar awards were made by reference Court in various other references. Aggrieved with the judgment of the reference Court, the claimants as well as NOIDA filed various first appeals before this Court. Several appeals filed by the claimants as well as by NOIDA, were clubbed together and were decided by the Division Bench in leading First Appeal No. 702 of 2001, NOIDA v. Bahadur and others by judgment dated 5.11.2014. Appeals of the claimants were allowed and the appeals filed by NOIDA were dismissed by the Division Bench as under: “From an overall analysis of the evidence and material on record, we find that the claimants’ contention for due fixation and enhancement of compensation based on various decision of the reference Court as well as that of this Court in appeals is well founded and convincing. The Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above in respect of the land situate in adjoining and nearby villages being similar in nature as well as having the same potentiality cannot be ignored. The Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above in respect of the land situate in adjoining and nearby villages being similar in nature as well as having the same potentiality cannot be ignored. Further due to proximity in time between acquisition of the land in the case in hand and the land acquired which has been subject-matter of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Division Bench have a binding precedent and not liable to be overlooked or ignored. In view of above facts and discussions, we find no illegality in the finding of the reference Court determining the market value of land @ Rs. 252/- per sq. yard and the impugned judgment with respect to the same does not require any interference. However, 50% deduction from the awarded amount cannot be held to be justified and the judgment and award of the reference Court to that extent cannot be sustained. However, since the claimant-appellants have only claimed compensation @ Rs. 176/- per sq. yard and paid Court fees accordingly, First Appeal Nos. 784 of 2003, 993 of 2003, 1052 of 2004, 1160 of 2004, 1161 of 2004, 1162 of 2004, 1163 of 2004, 1164 of 2004, 1168 of 2004, 763 of 2008, 748 of 2008, 764 of 2008, 762 of 2008, 740 of 2008, 1165 of 2004, 1015 of 2000 and 782 of 2008 are allowed to the above extent and the appellants are held to be entitled for payment of compensation @ Rs. 176/- per sq. yard alongwith all other statutory benefits such as interest, additional interest, solatium etc. as provided under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. First Appeal Nos. 702 of 2001, 667 of 2001, 635 of 2001, 643 of 2001, 655 of 2001, 710 of 2001, 634 of 2001, 946 of 2001, 704 of 2001, 675 of 2001, 631 of 2001, 637 of 2001, 697 of 2001, 831 of 2002, 676 of 2001, 668 of 2001, 629 of 2001, 654 of 2001, 698 of 2001, 670 of 2001, 669 of 2001, 674 of 2001, 706 of 2001, 671 of 2001, 700 of 2001, 832 of 2002, 708 of 2001, 673 of 2001, 672 of 2001, 633 of 2001, 636 of 2001, 833 of 2002, 639 of 2001 and 324 of 2002 filed by NOIDA accordingly stand dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied by me) SUBMISSIONS : 4. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submit that controversy involved in these appeals, is squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the case of NOIDA v. Bahadur and others (supra). However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in First Appeal No. 370 of 2012, the valuation was amended by the claimants and Court fees has been paid and as such only they are entitled for compensation @ Rs. 252/- per square yard. He submits that the claimants in remaining first appeals, are not entitled for compensation @ Rs. 252/- per square yard rather they shall be entitled to compensation to the extent of their claim made in the First Appeal and on which Court fees has been paid. 5. Refuting to the submissions, learned counsel for the appellants submit that respondents are liable to pay fair compensation being market value of acquired land which has been determined by the Division Bench @ Rs. 252/- per square yard. It is submitted that differential amount of Court fees may be adjusted at the time of payment of enhanced compensation. In support of their submissions, they relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Maharunnisa and another v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur, 2009 (9) SCC 750 (Para 6) and Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Haryana, 2016 (4) SCC 544 (para 13). DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS : 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that the controversy involved in these appeals, is covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in which the market value of land of the same village and acquired under the same notification, was determined @ Rs. 252/- per square yard. However, the claimants, who have claimed compensation @ Rs. 176/- per square yard and paid Court fees accordingly, their compensation were restricted to the extent of their claim i.e. @ Rs. 176/- per square yard. 8. In view of the aforesaid, there is no dispute with regard to award of compensation in First Appeal No. 370 of 2012 @ Rs. However, the claimants, who have claimed compensation @ Rs. 176/- per square yard and paid Court fees accordingly, their compensation were restricted to the extent of their claim i.e. @ Rs. 176/- per square yard. 8. In view of the aforesaid, there is no dispute with regard to award of compensation in First Appeal No. 370 of 2012 @ Rs. 252/- per square yard in terms of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the case of NOIDA v. Bahadur and others (supra). Consequently, this appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment in NOIDA v. Bahadur and others (supra). 9. So far as the other claimants appellants who have claimed lesser amount of compensation in their first appeals and accordingly deposited the Court fees, are concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the parties needs to be considered. 10. Undisputedly, the acquisition was made by notification, issued on 28.2.1990 and thus, proceeding for award etc. was carried thereafter. Under the circumstances, provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act No. 68 to 1984 were applicable. 11. As per un-amended Section 25 which existed prior to the aforesaid amendment, the amount of compensation that could be awarded by the Court, was limited to the amount claimed by the applicants. However, the amended provision of Section 25 of the Act, provides that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The amendment came into effect on 24.9.1984. Thus, the amended provision has not put a cap on the maximum amount of compensation rather it puts a cap on minimum compensation which cannot be less than the amount awarded by the Collector. The cap on maximum compensation has been expressly omitted by the amended provision. Thus, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a Court can award, is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the claimants/appellants. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors irrespective of the claim made by the claimants/owners. This view is also supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions including the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar and another (supra). This view is also supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions including the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar and another (supra). In the case of Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1985 (3) SCC 737 (para-3), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned single Judgement and the division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases where, as for instance, under-agrarian reform legislation, the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice, with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 12. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal, 2000 (7) SCC 756 (Para 17), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under the amended provision of Section 25 of the Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than that claimed in his pleadings. Paragraph 17 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: “17. Award being in this case between the dates 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984 and as per the Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh, 1989 (2) SCC 754 , the amended provisions would be applicable under which there is no restriction that award could only be upto the amount claimed by the claimant. Hence the High Court order granting compensation more than what is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the review itself, as is confined for the aforesaid reasons, has no merit.” 13. In the case of Bhimasha v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2008 (10) SCC 797 ; three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Bhag Singh (supra) case and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than that claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court. 14. On the point of payment of Court fees, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) as under: “Therefore, it will not be just and proper to award land value of Rs. 250/- per square yard, which is granted to the property in adjoining village. Having regard to the factual and legal position obtained above, we are of the considered view that the just and fair compensation in the case of appellants would be Rs. 200/- per square yard. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of fixing the land value at Rs. 200/- per square yard and the appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits. The amount as above shall be paid and deposited after adjusting the deficit Court fee, if any, before the executing Court within a period of three months from today.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 15. Similar controversy was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Maharunnisa (supra), it was held in para-6 as under: “6. The amount as above shall be paid and deposited after adjusting the deficit Court fee, if any, before the executing Court within a period of three months from today.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 15. Similar controversy was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Maharunnisa (supra), it was held in para-6 as under: “6. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall be directed to be paid to the appellants by the High Court if the appellants deposit the requisite Court fee on the aforesaid enhanced amount within four months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. In the event, the requisite Court fee, as directed above, is not paid within the time specified hereinabove, the appeals shall stand dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 16. In view of the above discussion, particularly in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), Bhimasha (supra) and Ashok Kumar (Supra), the remaining appellants are also entitled for compensation @ Rs. 252/- per square yard as has been awarded to similarly situated tenure holders/claimants by the reference Court or by the Division Bench of this Court and also the facts as noted in para-8 above. Consequently, it is held that the claimants appellants in First Appeal No. 887 of 2014, 581 of 2008 and 463 of 2003, shall also be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 252/- per square yard alongwith other statutory benefits under the Act in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 5.11.2014 in the case of NOIDA v. Bahadur and others (supra). The deficit amount of Court fees shall be deposited by the appellants of First Appeal No. 887 of 2014, 581 of 2008 and 463 of 2003 in this Court within three months, failing which these appeals shall stand dismissed in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-6 of the judgment in the case of Maharunnisa and others (supra). 17. In result, all the first appeals are allowed subject to observations made above.