Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1129 (ALL)

Devendra Palsingh v. State Of U. P.

2019-04-30

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Girish Vishwakarma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. All these first appeals arise from the impugned common judgment passed in twelve land acquisition references. 3. Paper book has been filed by the appellants and the respondent in the leading First Appeal No.1255 of 1990. Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the evidences in all these first appeals are common. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, all these first appeals are being heard together. 4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that by notification dated 08.03.1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), land measuring 25.3618 acres equivalent to 40-11-12 bighas situate in Village Chandpur, Pargana Baran, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar, was acquired for Upper Parallel Ganga Canal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 15.03.1986. Possession was taken on 09.09.1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 09.09.1986 determining compensation @ Rs.79,381/-per bigha for Jungle Auwal Abi soil quality land and Rs.44,209.94 for Jungle Auwal Khaki soil quality land. Prior to this acquisition, land measuring 5.0234 acres situated adjoining or near to the acquisition in question, was acquired by notification dated 02.08.1985 under Section 4 of the Act which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 30.08.1985 published on 19.10.1985 and the award was made by the S.L.A.O. on 06.12.1986 determining compensation @ Rs.4,50,000/-per bigha for the first belt, Rs.3,60,000/-per bigha for the second belt and Rs.2,40,000/- per bigha for the third belt. 5. According to the appellants, the compensation determined by the S.L.A.O. in his award dated 06.12.1986 relating to the acquisition dated 08.02.1985 was implemented by the State-respondents. 6. In First Appeal No.823 of 1992 arising from the impugned common judgment in L.A.R. No.25 of 1987 was disposed of by judgment dated 02.04.2008 and the matter was remanded to the reference court for decision afresh. By judgment dated 08.09.2009, the reference court again decided the aforesaid L.A.R. No.25 of 1987 with regard to the plot Nos.21 and 39 determining compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/-per bigha and also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-for the constructed portion and boring. Against this judgment the State of U.P. filed First Appeal No.73 of 2010 (State of U.P. and another Vs. By judgment dated 08.09.2009, the reference court again decided the aforesaid L.A.R. No.25 of 1987 with regard to the plot Nos.21 and 39 determining compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/-per bigha and also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-for the constructed portion and boring. Against this judgment the State of U.P. filed First Appeal No.73 of 2010 (State of U.P. and another Vs. Dharam Pal and others) which was dismissed by judgment dated 19.09.2016. The claimants have not challenged the aforesaid judgment of the reference court dated 08.09.2009 in L.A.R. No.25 of 1987 (Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another). 7. The present first appeal arise from the following land acquisition references: Sr. No. First Appal No. L.A.R. No. Khasra Plot No. Acquire d land (In bighas) Compensation determined by the S.L.A.O. (Rs. per bigha) Compensation determined by the reference court (Rs. per bigha) 1 1255 of 1990 (Devendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) 23 of 1987 110 3-18-4 79,381/- 2,40,000/- 2 833 of 1991 (Uday Pal/Girish Pal Vs. State of U.P. and another) 16 of 1987 101 3-13-2 - As determined by the S.L.A.O. 3 822 of 1992 (Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) 27 of 1987 19 4-17-8 79,381/- 79,381/- 4 823 of 1992 (Dharam Pal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 02.04.2008. Matter remanded. Remand the judgment dated 08.09.2009 challenged by State in First Appeal No.73 of 2010. Dismissed on 19.09.2016. 25 of 1987 21 39 3-0-0 6-18-17 79,381/- 1,00,000/- 5 828 of 1992 (Niranjan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) 13 of 1987 89 - 79,381/- 79,381/- 6 468 of 2017 (Yashpal Singh Vs. State) 15 of 1987 102 0-2-14 - As determined by the S.L.A.O. 7 First Appeal (Defective) No.500 of 1989 (Netra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) 19 of 1987 89 1-13-17 - As determined by the S.L.A.O. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that since in the earlier acquisition dated 02.08.1985/12.10.1985 for 5.0234 acres or 10-0-15 bighas compensation was determined by the S.L.A.O. for the adjoining or near by land in three belts at Rs.4,50,000/-for the fist belt, Rs.3,60,000/-for the second belt and Rs.2,40,000/-for the third belt, therefore, the claimants are also entitled to the compensation at the same rate. Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment. 9. Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment. 9. In paragraphs 17 and 19 of the impugned judgment, the reference court has recorded findings of fact which may briefly summarized as under:- Para 17: Plot No.89 (L.A.R. No.13 of 1987), Plot No.90 (L.A.R. No.14 of 1987), Plot No.102 (L.A.R. No.15 of 1987), Plot No.101 (L.A.R. No.16 of 1987), Plot No.43 (L.A.R. No.18 of 1987), Plot No.88 (L.A.R. No.20 of 1987), Plot No.89 (L.A.R. No.19 of 1987), Plot No.64 (L.A.R. No.21 of 1987), Plot No.63 (L.A.R. No.26 of 1987), Plot No.19 (L.A.R. No.27 of 1987), Plot Nos.21 and 29 (L.A.R. No.25 of 1987) are not adjoining the G.T. Road. Para 19: Plot No.110 is adjoining the G.T. Road which is near to the plot of Kedarnath Kansal and S.K. Gomat acquired in the aforesaid another acquisition. At the time of acquisition, construction of school and kotwali adjoining the plot No.110 was started. Near to it, there is a godown. This land has residential and commercial potential. G.T. Road has been constructed touching the south corner of plot No.110. The owner of plot No.110 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-per bigha, as determined for the third belt in the matter of Kedarnath Kansal and S. K. Gomat 10. From the findings recorded in the impugned judgment, it appears that Khasra Plot No.110 is adjoining the G.T. Road while other khasra plots are at same distance. Once in an earlier acquisition dated 02.08.1985/12.10.1985 compensation for the adjoining or nearby land was determined by the S.L.A.O. by award dated 06.12.1986 applying the belting system, in three belts at Rs.4,50,000/-for the first belt, Rs.3,60,000/- for the second belt and Rs.2,40,000/- for the third belt, therefore, it does not appeal to reason that while relying upon the award of the S.L.A.O. for the earlier acquisition dated 02.08.1985/12.10.1985 the court below has not applied the belting system whereas the land acquired under the present acquisition and the aforesaid earlier acquisition are nearby lands. No reasons have been recorded for not determining the compensation at the same rate as was determined by the S.L.A.O. in respect of the acquired plots except for the Plot No.110. The reference court has also not recorded any finding that in which belt the plot No.110 shall fall when it was an adjoining plot. The map of the acquired land under the aforesaid both acquisitions were well available on record. The reference court has also not recorded any finding that in which belt the plot No.110 shall fall when it was an adjoining plot. The map of the acquired land under the aforesaid both acquisitions were well available on record. A copy of the aforesaid award of the S.L.A.O. dated 06.12.1986 relating to the acquisition dated 02.08.1985 under Section 4 of the Act, has been filed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit of compliance dated 11.01.2019. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of the reference court passed in land acquisition references relating to the present appeals, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Appeals are allowed and matters are remanded to the reference court to determine compensation of the acquired land afresh in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made above, expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 12. Office shall return the lower court records to the court below within two weeks.