Partly allowed

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019FAPL/827/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court heard four connected first appeals regarding compensation for land acquisition for the Etawa Railway Line. Relying on precedents and a settlement between parties, the Court determined the compensation at Rs.1,200 per sq. meter with a 20% deduction. Claims by landowners were dismissed; the Railways' appeal was partly allowed with the impugned judgment modified.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.1,200 per sq. meter along with other statutory benefits. Impugned judgments modified accordingly.

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii Vs State of… — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 59

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 827 of 2018 Appellant :- The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for :- Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Tripathi,Ashok Tripathi

¶4

Connected With

¶5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 167 of 2018 Appellant :- Vikas Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramendra Asthana,Ashok Kumar Tripathi (Now Ashok Tripathi)

¶6

Connected With

¶7

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 179 of 2017 Appellant :- Dharmesh Kumar Shivhare Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramendra Asthana,Ashok Kumar Tripathi (Now Ashok Tripathi) Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶8

Connected With

¶9

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 177 of 2018 Appellant :- The Central Railway Thru Its Chairman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kishore Sharma,Ashok Kumar Tripathi (Now Ashok Tripathi)

¶10

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶11

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the acquiring body, i.e., Central Railway and Sri Ashok Tripathi, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.

¶12

2. First Appeal No.827 of 2018 and First Appeal No.177 of 2018 have been filed by the Central Railway. First Appeal No.167 of 2018 and First Appeal (Defective) No.179 of 2017 have been filed by the claimants. Defect in First Appeal (Defective) No.179

¶13

¶14

of 2017 has already been removed by the claimant-appellant.

¶15

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that by notification dated 11.02.2002 under Section 4(1) /17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), land measuring 7.532 hecs. of village Samsabad, Pargana and Tehsil Fatehabad, District Agra was acquired for construction of Etawa Railway Line. Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2002. Possession was taken on 07.03.2003. ADM (Land Acquisition), Agra made the award on 12.06.2003 determining market value of the acquired land @ Rs.215.05 per sq. meter and after making deduction of 45% determined the compensation @ Rs.118.28 per sq. meter. Dissatisfied with the offer made by the ADM (Land Acquisition), the claimants filed references under Section 18 of the Act which have been decided by the impugned judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, U.P.A.E.V.P. Tribunal, Civil Court, Agra determining market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,500/- per sq. meter and after giving deduction of 10%, the compensation has been determined @ Rs.1350 per sq. meter.

¶16

4. Both the learned counsels for the parties jointly state that the evidences led by the parties before the reference court in the impugned judgments are common and the acquisition is also one and the same and therefore, all the first appeals may be heard today treating First Appeal No.177 of 2018 as a leading first appeal in which paper book has been filed.

¶17

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the claimants have led documentary evidences in the form of sale deed exemplars being paper Nos.29-C, 30-C, 31-C and 32-C. Paper No.29-C is a sale deed dated 22.12.2000 relating to the same village whereby land measuring about 200 sq. meter has been sold @ Rs.1500 per sq. meter. Paper No.30-C is the sale

¶18

¶19

deed dated 22.10.2002 whereby land measuring 52.74 per sq. meter has been sold @ Rs.1706 per sq. meter. Paper No.31-C is the sale deed dated 03.11.1999 whereby land measuring 27.63 sq. meter has been sold @ Rs.4,787/- per sq. meter. Paper No.32-C is the sale deed dated 03.08.2001 whereby land measuring 1750 sq. feet has been sold @ Rs.3,807/- per sq. meter. He, therefore, submits that even if the sale deed exemplar being paper No.29-C is relied, it was not justified for the court below to make deduction. He, however, submits that in the event, the deduction is restricted to 20% in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others), (2007) 9 SCC 447 decided on 02.03.2007, then to buy peace and to avoid further litigation the claimants are ready to accept compensation after deduction of 20% on the basis of sale deed exemplar being paper No.29-C which would result in compensation @ Rs.1,200/- per sq. meter.

¶20

6. Learned counsel for the Central Railway submits that if a deduction of 20% is applied to determine the compensation on the basis of paper No.29-C then the Central Railway would have no grievance.

¶21

7. Thus, both the parties have agreed that the compensation may be determined on the basis of paper No.29-C after giving deduction of 20%.

¶22

8. No other point has been argued before me either by learned counsel for the claimants or by learned counsel for the railways.

¶23

9. In a recent decision dated 29.11.2018 in First Appeal No.205 of 2018 (The Central Railway through its Chairman Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) and connected appeal, this Court considered similar question of deduction in paras 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment and held as under:

¶24

¶25

“ 20. So far as the determination of market value of the acquired land is concerned, I find that the acquired land is near to Agra city. The town "Bad" is situate on AgraGwalior National Highway. DW-3 Rajendra Prasad Pippal (Revenue Inspector) has stated in his cross-examination that in Tehsil and Village "Bad", there exists schools, shops, electricity, telephone-facility and amenities and on both side of the National Highway, there is residential houses. On the basis of the sale deed dated 27.03.2000 executed by Dilip Kumar in favour of Indian Oil Corporation, the court below determined the compensation @ Rs.325.27 square meters. However, it allowed the deduction of merely 10%.

¶26

21. In Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others , decided on 02.03.2007 Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of deduction in case of acquisition made for construction New BG line for the Konkan Railways and held as under:

¶27

"However, the purpose for which the land acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2 SCC 422 and L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10) Scale 307 had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump, industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for."

¶28

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes and others (supra) , I find that the reference court should have made deduction at least 20% instead of 10%. On such deduction, the value of acquired land would come to Rs.260.72 per square meter. Thus value of the acquired land is determined at Rs.260.72 per square meter.

¶29

¶30

23. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed . The impugned judgment and decree passed by the reference court in L.A. Case No.578 of 2004 and 580 of 2004, are modified to the extent indicated above. Other consequential and statutory benefits shall also be determined accordingly. ”

¶31

10. Since, learned counsels for the parties have agreed that the impugned judgment may be modified determining compensation @ Rs.1,200/- per sq. meter, therefore, the impugned judgments are accordingly modified and it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,200/- per sq. meter along with other statutory benefits as has been granted by the court below.

¶32

11. In view of the above discussions, the First Appeal No.167 of 2018 and First Appeal (Defective) No.179 of 2017 filed by the claimants are dismissed . The First Appeal No.827 of 2018 and First Appeal No.177 of 2018 filed by the Railways are partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶33

Order Date :- 23.4.2019 Nitin Verma

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmesh Kumar Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmesh Kumar Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Rajwanti and Others

vikas jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 others

Meerut Development Authority Vs Smt. Manju Jain

Meerut Development Authority Thru Its Secretary Vs Smt. Anuradha Agarwal and Others