Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Shri Ram

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2019FAPL/623/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the batch of connected first appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and claimants challenging the Land Acquisition Officer's award of compensation for the acquisition of land for a housing scheme. The Appellant (Land Acquisition Officer) sought reduction of the compensation amount while the Respondent (Claimant) sought enhancement. The Court examined the market valu

What did the court decide?

All first appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed with no order as to costs.

State of U.P. Vs Shri Ram — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 623 of 1988

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Shri Ram Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,G.K. Pandey,SC,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- N.C. Rajvanshi

¶4

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 164 of 1988

¶5

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parisad Respondent :- Usuf Ali And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,Awadhesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- K.R. Sirohi

¶6

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 165 of 1988

¶7

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parisad Respondent :- Kaloo And Others Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- K.R. Sirohi

¶8

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 167 of 1988

¶9

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parisad Respondent :- Bishanbher And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,Awadhesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- K.R. Sirohi

¶10

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 168 of 1988

¶11

Appellant :- U.P.A.E.V.P Respondent :- Hashmat Ali And Another Counsel for Appellant :- N.L.Ganguly,Awadhesh Tiwari,P.K. Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- K.R.Sirohi

¶12

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 173 of 1988

¶13

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parisad Respondent :- Deep Chand And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,Awadhesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- K.R. Sirohi

¶14

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 174 of 1988

¶15

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parisad Respondent :- Sita Ram And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,A.S. Rana,Awadhesh Tiwari,Madan Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- K.R. Sirohi,Satish Mandhyan

¶16

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 176 of 1988

¶17

¶18

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parisad Respondent :- Smt. Meedi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,Awadhesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- K.R. Sirohi

¶19

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 622 of 1988

¶20

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Smt. Sameem Begam Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,SC,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- N.C Rajvanshi

¶21

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 624 of 1988

¶22

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Vijay And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,G.K. Pandey,SC,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- N.C. Rajvanshi

¶23

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 625 of 1988

¶24

Appellant :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Respondent :- Shri Niwas Counsel for Appellant :- N.L. Ganguly,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- N.C.Rajvanshi

¶25

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1070 of 1988

¶26

Appellant :- U.P.A.E.V.P. Respondent :- Jamshed Ali And Others Counsel for Appellant :- N.L. Ganguly,P.K. Singhal,S.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- N.C. Rajvanshi,Km.Usha Kiran

¶27

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 885 of 1989

¶28

Appellant :- Sri Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- R.J.D.Mishra,M.K. Rajvanshi,N.C. Rajvanshi,Prakash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,A.P.Srivastava

¶29

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 886 of 1989

¶30

Appellant :- Vijayand Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.J.B. Mishra,N.C. Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Misra

¶31

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 904 of 1989

¶32

Appellant :- Sri Niwas Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- R.J.D.Mishra,N.C. Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶33

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 559 of 1999

¶34

¶35

Appellant :- Jamshed Ali And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- N.C. Rajvanshi,Usha Kiran

¶36

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 42 of 1988

¶37

Appellant :- Smt. Shamim Begam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- R.J.D. Mishra

¶38

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶39

Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Mishra, Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsels for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants.

¶40

Out of the total 17 first appeals in this batch, 12 first appeals have been filed by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad for reduction of compensation and 5 first appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. In First Appeal Defective No.42 of 1988, deficiency of court fees has been made good. Therefore, the defect stands removed. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal.

¶41

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that by Notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, dated 5.12.1980, published in the gazette on 27.12.1980, land measuring 34.197 acres were acquired for "Grasthan Yojna No.1", Village - Khatauli, District - Muzaffarnagar. A Notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, dated 27.7.1982 was published in the

¶42

¶43

Gazette on 9.11.1982. Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the month of March, 1985, offering Rs.30/- sq. yard as compensation. Dissatisfied with the award several land owners filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which have been decided by separate orders passed by reference court which are impugned in the present leading and connected First Appeals.

¶44

By the judgments of the reference Court impugned in First Appeal No.559 of 1999 and First Appeal No.1070 of 1988 the compensation was determined at Rs.48/- per sq. yard.

¶45

By judgments of the reference court which are subject matter of First Appeal Nos.168, 622 and 42 (Defective) all of 1988, the compensation was determined @ Rs.54/- per sq. yard.

¶46

By the judgment of the reference court impugned in the remaining First Appeal Nos. 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 173, 174, 176, 623, 624, 625 all of 1988 and First Appeal Nos. 885, 886 and 904 all of 1989, the compensation was determined @ Rs. 60/- per sq. yard.

¶47

The reference court determined the compensation @ Rs.60/- per square yard on the basis of sale deed exemplars dated 30.12.1982 (Ex.2) executed by Smt. Santosh in favour of President of India for 360 square yards land of plot No.510 @ Rs.60/- per square yard and the sale deed dated 30.12.1982 (Ex.6) executed by Smt. Santosh Kumari and

¶48

¶49

Smt. Kaushal Rani in favour of President of India for 3044 square yards land of plot No.510 @ Rs.60/- per square yard; sale deed dated 04.10.1980 (Ex.3) executed by Smt. Ram Kumari in favour of Sri Satish Kumar for 200 square yards land of plot No.466 f@ Rs.49/- per square yard and the sale deed dated 03.04.1980 (Ex.9) executed by Smt. Raj Rani in favour of Smt. Shakuntala Devi for 533.81 square yards land of plot No.911 @ Rs.75.05 per square yard . This plot No.911 is situate towards east of the disputed land across the railway line.

¶50

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel for U.P. Awas Evam and Vikas Parishad, submits as under:-

¶51

(a) Sale deed relied by the court below (Ex.No.2 and 6) are dated 30.12.1982 while the acquisition was made on 05.12.1988 and, therefore, these two exemplars could not have been relied to determine market value of the land acquired on 05.12.1980.

¶52

(b) The Court below has committed manifest error of law in not allowing deduction of at least 25% for largeness of the area acquired.

¶53

(c) Rate approved by the Collector by his letter No.3016 dated 06.11.1980 as referred in the two sale deeds dated 30.12.1982 (Ex.2 and 6) certifying the prevalent market price of land in the area in the year 1980 to be Rs.60/- per square yard, could not have been relied by the court below to adopt the market rate provided in the two sale deeds dated 30.12.1982 (Ex.2 and 6) whereby sale deeds were executed by land owners in favour of the President

¶54

¶55

of India.

¶56

(d) Determination of compensation on the basis of sale deeds of the year 1982 being subsequent to the date of acquisition is wholly erroneous and illegal.

¶57

In support of his submissions, Sri Chaturvedi has relied upon the following judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court:

¶58

i. Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2012 (7) SCC 595

¶59

ii. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal, 2011 (9) SCC 207

¶60

iii. Valliyammal and another Vs. Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition and another, 2011 (8) SCC 91

¶61

iv. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun, 2004 (2) SCC 283

¶62

v. Jawajee Nagnatham v . Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad,. A.P., 1994 (4) SCC 595

¶63

vi. K. Vasundara Devi vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), 1995 (5) SCC 426

¶64

vii. Kausalya Devi Bogra vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, 1984 (2) SCC 324

¶65

Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned senior advocate appearing for the claimants and contending for enhancement for compensation, submits that Ex.7 and 8 being two sale deeds both dated 05.09.1980 for sale of 50 square yards land each disclosing selling rate of Rs.200/- per square yard, were the

¶66

¶67

best exemplars. Therefore, compensation should have been determined on the basis of these sale deed exemplars after giving deduction for largeness of area.

¶68

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

¶69

The sale deed dated 05.09.1980 (Ex.7) relied by learned counsel for the claimants shows that 50 square yard land of part of plot No.803 situate in Khatauli Town on the D.M. Road was sold which was within abadi. Similarly, the other sale deed dated 05.09.1980 relates to sale of 50 square yards land of part of the same khasra plot No.803, situate in Khatauli Town at D.M. Road and near to Delhi-Masoorrie Road. Therefore, I do not find that these sale deed exemplars are good exemplars to determine the compensation for the acquired land.

¶70

Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that in paragraph-23, the reference court has considered four sale deed exemplars i.e. the sale deed dated 04.10.1980 (Ex.3), sale deed dated 03.04.1980 (Ex.9), sale deed dated 30.12.1982 (Ex.2) and sale deed dated 30.12.1982 (Ex.6). By sale deed dated 03.04.1980 (Ex.9), an area of 533.81 square yards land of plot No.911 was sold for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The selling rate comes to Rs.75.05 per square yard. A finding of fact has been recorded that this plot is situate towards east of the acquired land across the railway line. This finding has not been disputed before me. The two sale deeds both dated 30.12.1982 (Ex.2 and 6)

¶71

¶72

would show that these were executed by land owners in favour of The President of India @ of Rs.60/- per square yard as certified by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar by letter No.3016 dated 06.11.1980, with respect to the prevalent market rate as on 06.11.1980.

¶73

Even if for a moment, these two sale deed exemplars are ignored, and the sale deed exemplar dated 03.04.1980 (Ex.9) disclosing selling rate of Rs.75.05 per square yard is adopted after allowing deduction of 25% towards largeness of the area as contended by learned counsel for the appellants, the market value would be Rs.56.25 per square yard as on 03.04.1980. The acquisition was made by Notification dated 05.12.1980 which was published in the Gazette on 27.12.1980. Therefore, escalation @ 15% per annum for eight months, on Rs.56.25 would be Rs.5.60, and the market value would be Rs.56.25 + Rs.5.60 = Rs.61.85 per square yard as on the date of acquisition. Thus, the determination of compensation by the court below @ Rs.60/per square yard, is just and fair.

¶74

The law with regard to determination of market value and the facts to be considered for this purpose, has been summarised by this Court in a judgment dated 25.03.2019 in First Appeal No.467 of 2006 ( Ram Phal and others vs. State of U.P. and others). Paragraph-20 thereof is reproduced below:

¶75

“ 20. Important principles for determination of market value of acquired land as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments may be summarized as under:(i) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than

¶76

¶77

other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive but subject to the following factors :-

¶78

(a) Sale must be a genuine transaction,

¶79

(b) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act,

¶80

(c) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land,

¶81

(d) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land

¶82

(e) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.

¶83

(f) if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land.

¶84

(ii) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition.

¶85

(iii) For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into

¶86

¶87

consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.

¶88

(iv) Deduction not to be done when land holders have been deprived of their holding 15 to 20 years back and have not been paid any amount.

¶89

(v) When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars , if it is satisfied, that it is a bonafide transaction has to be considered and accepted . When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. (Ref. (2012) 5 S.C.C 432, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered ), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others).

¶90

(vi) In view of Section 51A of the Act, 1894 certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence , even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale . (Ref. (2004) 8 S.C.C 270 para 28 and 38, Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and others).

¶91

(vii) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors :

¶92

(a) Existing geographical situation of the land.

¶93

(b) Existing use of the land.

¶94

(c) Already available advantages , like proximity to National

¶95

¶96

or State Highway or road and/ or developed area,

¶97

(d) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.

¶98

(viii) Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired.

¶99

(ix) The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing.

¶100

(x) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired {Reference: (2011) 8 SCC 91, Valliyamal and another vs. Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition and another (Paras 13 to 19)}.

¶101

(xi) Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost" .[Ref. (2012) 7 S.C.C 595 para 21, Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (dead) and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and (2010) 1 SCC 444 (Paras- 24 & 25), Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana].

¶102

(xii) The circle rate filed by the Collector or valuation register maintained by the Revenue Authorities under the Stamp Act, 1899 are irrelevant and cannot form a valid criteria to determine market value of land acquired under the Act, 1894, unless such determination is under a statutory obligation and after following a prescribed

¶103

¶104

procedure . {Reference: Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others, (1994) 4, SCC 595, the Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini (1995)1 SCC 717, U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (1996) 3 SCC 124, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar, (2004) 2 SCC 283}.”

¶105

Applying the principles laid down in the case of Ram Phal and others (supra) on the facts of the present case as discussed above, I find that compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.60/- per square yard, is just and fair compensation and requires no interference.

¶106

Therefore, all the first appeals filed by the State of U.P. or the U.P.A.E.V.P as well as first appeals filed by the claimants, are hereby dismissed . However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶107

Order Date :- 17.04.2019 NLY

State of U.P. v. Shri Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Shri Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P.

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

Sri Ram Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Vijay and Another