Partly allowed

Modern Vocational Inter College Chitra Gupta Nagar v. State of U.P.through Collector Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024FAPL/27/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment consolidates two first appeals regarding land acquisition compensation. Consenting with prior precedent from First Appeal No.4 of 1998 fixing market value at Rs.5.10 per sq. ft., the court allowed the appeal where claims were dismissed by the tribunal and dismissed the appeal where claims were enhanced. Compensation rates and interest on solatium remain fixed per the cited authority.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal No.27 of 2005 allowed; First Appeal No.20 of 2005 dismissed; orders modified to reflect compensation rate of Rs.5.10 per sq. ft. with interest terms as per precedent.

Modern Vocational Inter College Chitra Gupta Nagar Vs… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58307

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 27 of 2005

¶4

Appellant :- Modern Vocational Inter College Chitra Gupta Nagar Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- V.K.Srivastava,O.P.Pal Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Singh

¶5

And

¶6

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 20 of 2005

¶7

Appellant :- Lucknow Development Authority Thru Secy. Respondent :- Badri Narain Lal Vocational Inter College Thru Prin. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- V.K.Srivastava,Ajay Kumar Singh,Anju Singh,O P Pal

¶8

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶9

Heard Shri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

The First Appeal No.27 of 2005 has been filed for modification of the judgment and order dated 08.10.2004 and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer/ learned Additional District Judge, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow and enhancement to Rs.5.10 paisa per square feet.

¶11

The First Appeal No.20 of 2005 has been filed by the Lucknow Development Authority challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Presiding Officer/ learned Additional District Judge, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow In Misc. Case No.27 of 2000.

¶12

There is consensus among learned counsel for the parties that these appeals are covered by the judgment and order dated 11.10.2012 passed in a bunch of appeals by this Court, leading of which is First Appeal No.4 of 1998; Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Ravindra Nath Singh and Others , by means of which the market value has been fixed at the rate to Rs.5.10 paisa per square feet and an interest at the

¶13

rate of 9% has been allowed in case the amount is paid within one year and 15% if the amount is not paid within one year. The relevant paragraph 11 to 15 are extracted here-in-below:-

¶14

"11. In the present case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has himself admitted that the land in question is adjacent to the Lucknow Kanpur Highway and situated on the eastern side of the said road. It has also been mentioned that P.A.C. Establishment, Scooter India Factory, Sainik School and Airport Establishment are also situated within the close proximity. It has been mentioned that facility of conveyance, transportation and electricity is also available near the land in question. Therefore, these factors ought to have been taken into consideration while fixing the percentage of deductions in the market value. In the case of Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs. and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in [(2008) LAC 209 SC], the Apex Court had found deductions of only 10% to be correct, towards development charges but in that case the land was acquired for the purposes of establishment of Sugar Factory while the land in question was acquired for a residential colony. The claimants had specifically claimed that the level of the land is even and nothing is to be done for levelling the land to make it usable for residential colony. This point has not been disputed. In these circumstances, the assertions of the LDA that the finding recorded by the court below are perverse or unreasonable cannot be accepted.

¶15

12. In view of the above circumstances, we hold that the deduction of 40% was much higher and the same must be reduced. Thus, the deduction of 15% of the market value as assessed by the court below and applying deduction of 15% the value of the land in question comes to Rs. 5.10/- per square feet, which is close to the market value, which was awarded earlier with regard to the land acquired in the vicinity.

¶16

13. Other grievance of the claimants/appellant is that interest of solatium was not granted. This aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in the constitution Bench decision in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India reported in [AIR 2001 SC 3516] while considering the various decision of the High Court and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in [AIR 1980 Punjab & Haryana 117] held that interest awardable under Section 28 includes within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium and it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the person is entitled to the compensation and is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. This view of the Apex Court has been followed in a recent judgment in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in [AIR 2012 SC 2721]. Therefore, the claimants/appellants were also entitled to the interest on the solatium amount.

¶17

14. The claimants have made out the case for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, market value of the land is hereby fixed as Rs. 5.10/- per square feet and the appellants/claimants are also entitled to the interest on solatium. If the enhanced amount is paid within a year, the claimants shall be entitled to interest thereon @ 9%, if the enhanced amount is not paid within a period of one year, they shall be entitled to interest @ 15% thereafter.

¶18

15. Accordingly, appeals preferred by the claimants/land owners are allowed and the appeals preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority

¶19

are accordingly dismissed. The order of the court below is modified to the extent mentioned above."

¶20

In view of above and consensus among learned counsel for the parties, the First Appeal No.27 of 2005 is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.10.2012 and the First Appeal No.20 of 2005 is dismissed .

¶21

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 28.8.2024 Haseen U.

¶22

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

Modern Vocational Inter College Chitra Gupta Nagar v. State of U.P.through Collector Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modern Vocational Inter College Chitra Gupta Nagar v. State of U.P.through Collector Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rani Devi and Others Vs Union of India. Thru. General Manager, Northen Railway Baroda House New Delhi

Shiv Shankar Singh vs Shwetab Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Milkipur, Faizabad / Ayodhya

Shyamlal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Mohd Akram Ansari vs Mohd Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui and Others

M/S Balaji Construction Thru Its Partner Abha Singh vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lucknow and Ors.

Aleyar vs Mohammad Hasan and Others