Allowed

Ram Chadnra Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 May 2024FAPL/110/1984

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal concerns land acquisition compensation under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Act. The appellant sought enhancement based on a Government Order granting Rs.3 per sq. ft. to other land in the scheme. The Court allowed the appeal, awarding Rs.3 per sq. ft. compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is entitled to Rs.3/- per sq. ft. as compensation.

Ram Chadnra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37692

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 110 of 1984

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Chadnra Agarwal Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- B.C. Agarwal,Piyush Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puneet Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Atul Kumar Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State as well as Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow - respondent No.2.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land which is the subject matter of the instant appeal was acquired by the respondent No.2 for its Housing Scheme.

¶8

The appellant had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 55 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Act before the competent Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. Since, the same did not find favour with the Court, the instant first appeal was preferred.

¶9

It has been pointed out that during pendency of the instant appeal, in respect of the same scheme, a number of appeals came to be filed, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed orders granting Rs.3/- per sq. ft. as compensation in respect of the same Scheme for which the land of the appellant was acquired.

¶10

It has also been pointed out that since a number petitions were pending relating to the said scheme where Rs.3/- was granted. Accordingly, the State Government by its Government Order dated 24.01.1988 had clearly provided that all such matters pertaining to the said Scheme where the appellant/parties were interested in taking the compensation @ Rs.3/- shall be provided by the District Magistrate concerned and it was further provided that in case where the appeals are pending and engaging the attention of the Court, they would be governed by the outcome of the said appeals.

¶11

It is thus urged that in light of the aforesaid Government Order, the appellant is also entitled to get Rs.3/- per sq. ft. as compensation. The appellant has also given an undertaking that

¶12

he shall not claim any amount except as provided in the orders passed by this Court and also in light of the Government Order issued by the State Government.

¶13

Learned standing counsel for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact and he submits that in case if the appellant is ready to take Rs.3/- per sq. ft., he shall be covered by the judgment passed by this Court as well as the Government Order.

¶14

Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad has disputed the aforesaid and submitted that the land of the appellant is not situated on the highway and is different to the land of the other persons, who have been granted Rs.3/- per sq. ft. as compensation, however, he could not dispute the fact that the land of the appellant is also covered by the same Scheme. However, he could not point out that how the land of the appellant was different to the land of the other tenure-holders, who have been granted Rs.3/- per sq. ft. as the compensation.

¶15

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶16

The record indicates that a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant dated 22.11.2022 wherein several orders passed by this Court granting Rs.3/- per sq. ft. as compensation has been passed relating to the Scheme at hand.

¶17

This is not disputed by the learned standing counsel or the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶18

The relevant portion of the judgment and order passed in First Appeal No.179 of 1982 reads as under:-

¶19

"Heard Sri R.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record.

¶20

By means of the present appeal, the order dated 1.3.1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, Housing Board Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 38 of 1977, Nadeemurrahman Kidwai Vs. State of U.P. thereby rejecting the claim of the appellant for Rs. 5/- per sq. ft, and partly allowed the reference by awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. ft. for the land acquired by the Housing Board, Lucknow.

¶21

Learned counsel for the parties submits that the controversy which is involved in the present appeal has already been decided by means of the judgment and order dated 23.4.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 63 of 1982 alongwith other connected matters in which this Court has held as

¶22

under:-

¶23

"Appellant's Counsel submits that end of justice would be secured, if the amount of compensation is further enhanced to Rs.1.50 per square feet, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶24

In view of above, the impugned judgments and decrees are modified to the extent that all the appellants are further entitled to Rs. 1.50 per square feet. The difference of enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant/ legal heirs of appellants, as the case may be, within a maximum period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order."

¶25

In view of the above said fact, a request has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 23.4.2010 in First Appeal no. 63 of 1982 and other connected matters. The said request is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶26

For the foregoing reasons,the impugned judgments and decree is modified to the extent that all the appellants are further entitled to Rs. 1.50 per square feet. The difference of enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant/ legal heirs of appellants, as the case may be, within a maximum period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

Accordingly, the present First Appeal is partly allowed. "

¶28

Considering the aforesaid as well as the fact that the land of the appellant is also covered by the said Scheme and contagious land and as such Rs.3/- has been granted as compensation, this Court is of the clear opinion that the appellant shall also be entitled to be granted Rs.3/- per sq. ft., as other tenure-holders of the Scheme. The case of the appellant is covered by the said judgments of this Court as noticed above.

¶29

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal stands allowed.

¶30

Costs are made easy.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Chadnra Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chadnra Agarwal v. State of U.P.

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

State of U.P.through Collector Lucknow and 2 Others Vs Sri Kant Singh Chauhan

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru. Divisional Manager Vs Shiv Shankar Gupta and Others

Mohd. Maqsood @ Laden Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arvind and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Durgawati Yadav vs Saurabh Kumar Yadav

Ram Sahai and Another vs Addl. Director of Consolidation Administration U.P. Lko. and Another