Dismissed

Sushil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2019FAPL/996/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal, the court held that the lower court correctly rejected sale deed exemplars dated after the acquisition notification. Relying on the appellant's own oral evidence that the purchase price was lower than the compensation rate, the High Court found the award adequate and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal is dismissed; compensation is upheld.

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

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 996 of 1990

¶3

Appellant :- Sushil Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.N. Agarwal,Harsh Vardhan Gupta,Manoj Pathak,N.K Srivastava,Nagendra Kumar Srivastava,Neeraj Agarwal,P.N. Singh,Rama Kant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Paras Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the claimant-appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

2. By notification dated 26.02.1983 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), land of the claimant-appellants measuring 12-9-3 bighas (7.786 acres) was acquired by the respondents for establishing 132 K.B. Sub Station and Residential Quarters of employees. The aforesaid land is situate in Town Shikarpur, Pargana Shikarpur, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar. Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 08.09.1984. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 18.04.1986 offering compensation of Rs.7,25,326.64 along with other statutory benefits and interest. Dissatisfied with the offer made, the claimant-appellants filed L.A.R. No.101 of 1988 (Sushil Kumar Vs. State) which was dismissed by judgment dated 09.07.1990 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar. Aggrieved with this judgment, the claimant-appellants have fled the present appeal.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no evidence was led by the respondents before the reference court whereas the appellants have filed two sale deed exemplars in evidence and also led oral evidence of P.W.1. A commission was appointed to submit on spot report of the acquired land which was submitted by the commission on 01.07.1989. He submit that even as per khasra and the commission report the land was even and there was abadi over part of the acquired land and even land whereas the exemplar made basis by the S.L.A.O. to determine compensation being sale deed dated 24.09.1982 was of plot No.2348 which was about four feet

¶8

lower and there was no approach road adjoining it. The land of the claimant-appellants was adjoining the road. It had good potential value. The respondents have not led any evidence before the reference court. Under the circumstances, the reference court committed a manifest error of law and facts and acted contrary to provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act to uphold the award passed by the S.L.A.O. The S.L.A.O. offered award which came to rupees about 13.75 per sq. yard.

¶9

4. Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment.

¶10

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

¶11

6. The claimant-appellants have completely failed to file in evidence any sale deed exemplar of a date prior to the date of acquisition. The sale deed exemplar filed by claimants were of dates subsequent to acquisition and therefore, it was rightly rejected by the court below. There is no evidence on record which may support the contention of the claimant-appellants that the market value of the acquired land determined by the court below is inadequate. In his oral evidence as P.W.1, the claimant-appellants himself accepted that he purchased the land on 31.10.1984 @ Rs.6,200/- per kaccha bigha whereas the compensation has been determined at the rate higher than Rs.6,000/- per kaccha bigha. The acquisition was made by the notification dated 26.02.1983. Therefore, in view of their own admission of the claimant-appellants as aforenoted, the compensation awarded to the claimant-appellants cannot be said to be inadequate.

¶12

7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.5.2019 Nitin Verma

Sushil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

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

Bhikkan Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector and Others

State of U.P. and Another Vs Dharamveer Singh and 11 Ors.

Brij Narayan Vs Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Others

Smt. Sita Pati Devi and Others Vs Chhotey Lal and Others

Fulmati Vs Navnath and 7 Others

Pandhari Vs Shitla Prasad (Deceased) and 11 Others