Partly allowed

Sadanad Mishra and Another v. Special Land Acquicition Officer and Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2019FAPL/923/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of five first appeals arising from a common judgment regarding land acquisition compensation. Relying on a 2013 precedent, the court upheld the legality of a 25% deduction for residential colony development and dismissed claimants' appeals while partially allowing the State's appeals.

What did the court decide?

First Appeals filed by claimants dismissed; First Appeals filed by U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad partly allowed.

Sadanad Mishra and Another Vs Special Land Acquicition… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

1. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 923 of 1999

¶3

Appellant :- Sadanad Mishra And Another Respondent :- Special Land Acquicition Officer And Others Counsel for Appellant :- N.B.Nigam,K.M.Mishra,Rahul Agarwal,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- N C Tripathi,S.C.

¶4

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 685 of 2009

¶5

Appellant :- U.P.A.V.E.V.P. Respondent :- Yash Prakash Mishra Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,N.C.Tripathi

¶6

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 28 of 2009

¶7

Appellant :- U.P.A.V.E.V.P. Respondent :- Gyan Prakash Mishra And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singhal,N.C. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,K.K. Tripathi

¶8

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 4 of 2000

¶9

Appellant :- Smt. Prabha Rani Misra Respondent :- Special Land Acquisition Officer Etawah And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.Haidar Zaidi Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶10

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 575 of 1999

¶11

Appellant :- Brij Prakash Misra And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- K.K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- P.K. Singhal,N.C. Tripathi

¶12

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶13

Heard Ms. Archi Agarwal holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad.

¶14

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that by notification 23.02.1980 under Section 28 of U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad Adhiniyam, 34.28 acres land of village Parade Cantt., Tehsil and District Etawah was acquired for U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad and out of which possession of only 16.46 acres land was given to the Parishad. Notification under Section 32 was issued on

¶15

¶16

06.11.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 26.08.1986 determining the market value @ Rs.39,139.33 per acre and after giving deduction @ 25% for largeness of the area, the compensation was finally determined @ Rs.29,354.87 per acre. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Three such references were decided by the impugned common judgment dated 31.03.1999 in L.A.R. No.4 of 1987 (Yes Prakash Mishra vs. State of U.P.), L.A.R. No.5 of 1987 (Gyan Prakash vs. State of U.P.) and L.A.R. No.6 of 1987 (Sadanand Mishra and others vs. State of U.P.) passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Etawah. It is stated by learned counsel for U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad that similar judgments were passed in other references also. By the impugned judgment, the reference court determined compensation @ Rs.39,139.83 per acre, without deduction. Aggrieved with the judgment of the reference court, the claimants have filed First Appeal No.923 of 1999, First Appeal No.575 of 1999 and First Appeal No.4 of 2000, while the U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad has filed First Appeal No.28 of 2009 and 685 of 2009.

¶17

First Appeal No.923 of 1999, First Appeal No.575 of 1999 and First Appeal No.4 of 2000 filed by the claimants and First Appeal No.28 of 2009 and 685 of 2009, filed by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad, all arose from the impugned common judgment.

¶18

It is stated by Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad that a similar First Appeal No.186 of 2000 ( U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Atar Singh and others), has

¶19

¶20

been decided by this court by judgment dated 01.10.2013, as under:

¶21

“In this appeal the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has challenged the judgment and order dated 10.12.1999 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Etawah in L.A.R. No.3 OF 1987.

¶22

Service of notice upon claimant/respondent has been held to be sufficient by the order of the Court dated 9.5.2013 but no one has put in appearance.

¶23

Lower court record has been received.

¶24

I have heard counsel for the appellant but no one has appeared for the claimant/respondent.

¶25

The limited point argued in this appeal is that the reference court has committed an error in making deduction of 25% from the market value assessed for payment of compensation.

¶26

The land was admittedly acquired for the purposes of developing a residential colony and it is well settled that for development purposes about 40% or more land has to be left out for carving out roads, parks, drainage and other civil amenities. Therefore, where the land is acquired for residential colonies necessary deduction depending upon location of the land etc. is imperative.

¶27

The Special Land Acquisition Officer in offering the compensation has deducted 25% from the market value. The said deduction has been deleted by the reference court only on the ground that the land involved in the reference is situate at a distance from the land involved in the exemplar on the basis of which the market value was determined and for the reason that this land is situate on the main road.

¶28

Location of the land no doubt is important but as part of the land has to be utilised for providing various civil amenities and the same was necessary, instead of making deduction of 1/3 of the market value or more the Special Land Acquisition Officer had provided for deduction of only 25%.

¶29

In view of the above, the said deduction of 25% was not illegal and the reference court is not justified in deleting the same. The reference court in deleting the deduction of 25% has completely overlooked the fact that the land was being acquired for developing a residential colony.

¶30

Accordingly, the compensation of the acquired land would be admissble at the rate of Rs.39,139.83 per acre after deducting 25% from the same. In all other respects the impugned judgment would remain intact. The appeal is allowed in part. ”

¶31

It is further stated that the aforequoted judgment was followed by another bench of this court in First Appeal No.184 of 2000 (U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Om Narayan Dixit and others), decided on 17.08.2016 and the first appeal field by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad were partly allowed. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the claimants that the

¶32

¶33

controversy involved in the present first appeals, is covered by the afore-quoted judgment of this court in First Appeal No.186 of 2000.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, the First Appeal No.923 of 1999, First Appeal No.575 of 1999 and First Appeal No.4 of 2000 filed by the claimants are dismissed , and, First Appeal No.28 of 2009 and 685 of 2009 , filed by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad are partly allowed in terms of the judgment dated 01.10.2013 in First Appeal No.186 of 2000. Order Date :- 03.04.2019 NLY

Sadanad Mishra and Another v. Special Land Acquicition Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanad Mishra and Another v. Special Land Acquicition Officer and Others

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

U.P.A.E.V.P. and Another Vs Bulaki

Sajjan Singh @ Yograj Singh (Deceased) and 2 Others Vs Chunni Lal and 4 Others

Smt. Sudha Devi Vs Ram Ratan Alias Ram Lakhan and Another

Brij Prakash Misra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dr. Moti Lal Vs Dr. Sideshwar Nath

Dharmendra Kumar Vs Indra Nath