Partly allowed

Arun Kumar and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019FAPL/440/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the compensation rate awarded for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The court rejected the appellant's submission that earlier decisions involving a subsequent acquisition notification apply here, noting the notifications were different. Instead, the court validated the reference court's basis but modified the award to add a 15% escalation, determining the final

What did the court decide?

Compensation determined at Rs. 7100/- per acre. Impugned judgment and decree dated 27.3.1989 in LAR No.50 of 1984 modified.

Arun Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 59

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 440 of 1989

¶4

Appellant :- Arun Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- SC

¶5

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶6

1- Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the Claimants-appellants and Sri P.P. Chaudhry, learned counsel for the State-respondent.

¶7

2- On 5.2.2019 arguments of Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants were noted as under:

¶8

"Learned counsel for the respondents states that the claimants-appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs.6696.70 per acre, while the compensation to other similarly situate persons in respect of the same acquisition has been awarded @ Rs.15,402/- per acre which was subject matter of first appeal No.1262 of 1990, State of U.P. v. R.P. Mittal, which was dismissed on 10.11.2017. Similarly, the another set of Claimants/land holders were awarded compensation @ Rs.11,848/- per acre, which was challenged by the State-respondents in First Appeal No.732 of 1988 (State of U.P. v. Sharad Kumar and another), which was dismissed on 6.4.2017. He therefore, submits that the claimants-land holders are also entitled for payment of claim @ Rs.15,402/- per acre as has been upheld by this Court by the aforesaid judgment dated 10.11.2017 in First Appeal No.1262 of 1990".

¶9

3- On the basis of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-appellants, an order dated 5.2.2019 was passed requiring the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions with respect to the submissions of the appellants, as afore-quoted.

¶10

4- In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 5.2.2019, an affidavit of compliance of the District Magistrate, Bijnor, dated 5.4.2019 and an affidavit of compliance dated 16.4.2019, have been filed.

¶11

5- In para-3 of the affidavit of compliance filed today, it has been clarified that the compensation @ Rs.15,402/- was determined with respect to a different acquisition notification dated 19.12.1981. Status of the first appeals arising from the judgment passed in land acquisition cases relating to the acquisition notification dated 19.12.1981, as relied by the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants to claim similar compensation has been noted in the order dated 9.4.2019, as under:

¶12

Sl. No.	L.A. Case No.	Name of Parties	Date of Decision of Reference Court	Compensati on determined (Rs.) per acre	Particu of appeal by the Govt.	lars first filed State	State of Appeal
1.	50/84	Arun Kumar v. State	27.03.1989	6,696.70	875/88		Dismissed on 06.04.2017
2.	51/84	Karan Singh v. State	20.05.1988	9,628.00	732/88		Dismissed

¶13

¶14

						on 06.04.2017
3.	52/84	Sharad Kumar v. State	12.04.1988	11,848.34	28/2008	Dismissed on 06.04.2017
4.	53/84	Arun Kumar v. State	12.04.1988	11,848.34	488/89	Status not known
5.	62/83	R.P. Mittal v. State	17.02.1989	15,402.00	1262/90	Dismissed on 10.11.2017
6.	63/83	R.P. Mittal v. State	17.02.1989	15,402.00	------	----

¶15

6- The aforesaid appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on the ground of smallness of valuation in terms of the Government policy and, therefore, the order passed in the aforesaid appeals cannot be treated as precedent.

¶16

7- The land of the claimants-appellants has been acquired by acquisition notification 16.5.1981 and not under Notification dated 19.12.1981.

¶17

8- Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that in LAR Nos. 62 and 63 of 1983 (R.P. Mittal v. State), decided by the Reference Court by judgment dated 17.2.1989, compensation has been determined @ Rs.15,402.00 per acre with reference to acquisition notification dated 19.12.1981 relating to the same village and, therefore, the claimantsappellants are also entitled to the compensation at the same rate even though, the land was not acquired by the same notification. He further submits that in LAR No.52/84 (Sharad Kumar and others v. State), land of the same village i.e. Village Rafiful Nagar @ Rawali was acquired by notification dated 19.12.1981 and the reference court determined compensation @ Rs. 11,848.34 per acre. Therefore, the claimants-appellants are entitled for compensation @ Rs.11,848.34 per acre. He further submits that the sale-deed dated 20.4.1978/1.5.1978 (Exh.2) relating to village Barkala was relied by the Reference Court in L.A. Case Nos.62 and 63 both of 1983 in the acquisition dated 19.12.1981, and therefore, these sale-deed exemplars should have also been applied to determine compensation of land acquired in the acquisition dated 16.5.1981.

¶18

9- Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the judgment passed by the Reference Court in LAR Nos.51, 52 and 53 all of 1984 and LAR Nos. 62 and 63 both of 1983, are of no help to the claimants-appellants, inasmuch as, all these judgments relate to the acquisition made by a subsequent Notification dated 19.12.1981, under Section 4(1) of Act. He further submits that these judgments are of no help to

¶19

¶20

the claimants-appellants, inasmuch as a better sale-deed exemplar dated 23.12.1980 of the village in question i.e. Village Rawali, was filed in evidence, whereby Khasra Plot No.215/9/2 and 285/57/1 were sold for Rs.1,10,000/-. In the present acquisition dated 16.5.1981, part of the aforesaid two Khasra plots being Khasra Plot Nos.215 and 285/57/1 were acquired. Thus, the sale deed exemplar being part of Khasra plots acquired under the present acquisition was available, which is nearest to the date of acquisition and, therefore, this is the best exemplar.

¶21

10I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

11Undisputedly, by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 16.5.1981, land measuring 12.170 acres of Village Rafiul Nagar alias Rauli, Pargana Mandawar, Tehsil and district Bijnor, was acquired for East Ganga Pariyojna. The judgment of reference court in LAR Nos. 50, 51, 52 and 53 all of 1984 and LAR Nos. 62 and 63 both of 1983 relate to an acquisition made by a different notification dated 19.12.1981. The sale deed exemplar relied by the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants in the present appeal is the sale deed dated 20.4.1978, whereby a land measuring 1 bigha 7 biswa of Village Barkala , was sold for Rs.10,000/- without allowing any deduction towards largeness of area. The appeals dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the Government policy dated 28.12.2016 on account of smallness of valuation and relating to a different acquisition can not be treated as precedent. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the claimants-appellants are entitled to the same rate of compensation, as has been awarded by the reference court by another judgment relating to a subsequent acquisition, deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.

¶23

12The compensation determined by the impugned judgment is based on a sale-deed exemplar dated 23.12.1980 for sale of part of Khasra plot Nos. 215 and 285/57/1 measuring 16.42 acres. Part of the same Khasra plots has been acquired under the present acquisition dated 16.5.1981. Therefore, this saledeed exemplar dated 23.12.1980 being nearest to the point of time of the present acquisition and also being part of Khasra plots acquired under the present acquisition, has been rightly made basis by the reference court to determine compensation of land acquired under the acquisition notification

¶24

¶25

dated 16.5.1981. However, the reference court has not provided escalation to determine the market value. Therefore, the escalation of 15% needs to be added. The court below has determined compensation @ Rs. 6696.70 per acre. On adding escalation @ 15% per annum for five months, compensation would come to Rs. 7,100/- per acre. Therefore the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below deserves to be modified.

¶26

13In view of the above discussion, the compensation of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.7100/- per acre. The claimants-appellants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.7,100/- per acre along with statutory benefits granted by the court below. The impugned judgment and decree dated 27.3.1989 passed in LAR No.50 of 1984 (Arun Kumar v. State of U.P.) is accordingly modified.

¶27

14The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 16.4.2019 Ak/

Arun Kumar and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khem Chand Sharma Vs Jagdish Prashad Sharma and Others

Harish Chandra and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Haji Masit and Another

Ascharya Lal Kakkar Vs Akhilesh Chandra Trivedi

Ram Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P.

U.P.A.E.V.P. Vs Jamshed Ali and Others