Partly allowed

Jagan Lal v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2019FAPLD/637/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the claim for condonation of delay despite a lapse of over 379 years due to Supreme Court intervention. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the impugned judgment to align compensation rates with the precedent set in Bandhu Khan v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeal partly allowed; impugned judgment modified to fix compensation at Rs.42.50 per sq. yard in line with Bandhu Khan.

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

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 637 of 1992

¶3

Appellant :- Jagan Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Mohan

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant.

¶6

This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 381 days. It was dismissed on the ground of delay by order dated 27.10.2014. Against the aforesaid order, the claimant-appellant filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).8248 of 2015 (Jagan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), which was allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by Order dated 27.11.2017, as under:

¶7

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that this is a matter pertaining to acquisition of land and the appeal was taken up for consideration after a gap of more than 20 years, we are of opinion that it would be appropriate if the appeal is

¶8

decided on its own merits. However, before the appeal is taken up for consideration, each of the petitioner will deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs in the High Court within four weeks.

¶9

The special leave petitions stand disposed of."

¶10

As per office report dated 22.12.2017, the appellant has deposited the cost in terms of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Office is directed to give regular number to the appeal.

¶11

By Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 published on 9.2.1962, the land of the appellant situate in Village Jatwar Kala, District - Ghaziabad was acquired for construction to be raised by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The award was passed on 1.2.1964. Aggrieved with the award several land holders filed reference applications which were registered as land Acquisition References. Twenty one such land acquisition references were decided by the impugned common judgment dated 4.4.1991 passed by the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad awarding the compensation @ Rs.7 per sq. yard as against the award of Rs.0.48 per sq. yard determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The L.A.R. No.38 of 1989 (Bandhu Khan Vs. State of U.P.) was also decided by the impugned common judgment against which the concerned claimant filed first appeal no.543 of 1997 (Bandhu Khan Vs. State of U.P.) which was decided by the Division Bench by judgment dated 10.11.2016 determining the compensation @ Rs.42.50 per sq. yard. Following the aforesaid judgment another First Appeal No.896 of 1992 arising from the impugned common judgment in LAR No.2 of 1989 was also decided by this Court by judgment dated 28.11.2018 observing as under:

¶12

"Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-Ghaziabad Development Authority on Amendment Application No. 206258 of 2003 and Appeal.

¶13

The Amendment Application No. 206258 of 2003 is allowed. Necessary correction be carried out within three days. The Stamp Reporter shall determine the deficient amount of court fees within a week, which shall be deposited by the appellants within two weeks thereafter.

¶14

The land of the claimants was acquired by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1893 published on 09.02.1962. The award was passed on 01.02.1964. The reference court passed the impugned judgment dated 04.04.1991 determining compensation of the acquired land at the rate of 7% per square yard along with other statutory benefits.

¶15

Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the claimants filed present appeal.

¶16

Learned counsels for the appellants and respondents jointly submit that the controversy is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10.11.2016 in First Appeal No.543 of 1997 (Bandhu Khan vs. State of U.P.), therefore, the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Bandhu Khan (supra), which has been partly allowed following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court dated 23.02.2016 in Civil Appeal No.1710 of 2016 wherein the compensation has been finalized at the rate of Rs.42.50 per square yard.

¶17

In view of the statement made by the learned counsels for the parties, as above-noted, the present appeal is also partly allowed in terms of the judgment dated 10.11.2016 in First Appeal No.543 of 1997 (Bandhu Khan vs. State of U.P.) subject to deposit of court fees as directed above. The impugned judgment is accordingly modified."

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, the present First Appeal is also partly allowed in terms of the judgment in the case of Bandhu Khan (supra).

¶19

Order Date :- 13.2.2019/vkg

Jagan Lal v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagan Lal v. State of U.P. and 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

Nahid Begam in the Matter of the Goods of Late Akhtar Husain Vs Na

Savita Singh in the Matter Ofgoods of Late Ram Babu Singh Vs Na

In the Matter of the Goods of Late Shrimati Kamla Jadwani by Shri Gokal Jadwani Vs Na

Sunni Central Board of Waqf U.P. Lko. and Another Vs Ivth A.D.J. Etawah and Others

Nagina Vs A.D.J. Court No. 2 and Others

Haider Ali Vs Mst. Batool Fatima Since Deceased and Ors.