Dismissed

State of U.P.through Collector Raibareli v. Rakesh Kumar and Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2024FAPL/64/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal by the State challenging a tribunal order that enhanced land acquisition compensation to Rs. 1,500 per biswa. The court held the enhancement was justified as it matched an unassailed award given to a similar tenement holder.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the award passed by the reference court in LAC No. 14 of 1992 dated 07.11.1997 was confirmed.

State of U.P.through Collector Raibareli Vs Rakesh Kumar… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40722

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 64 of 1999

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Raibareli Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Chief Standing Counsel,V.K.S.Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- V.K.S.Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-State. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

Since, the appeal is of the year 1999, accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the appeal in absence of the respondents.

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') against the judgment dated 07.11.1997 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raebareli in LAC No.14 of 1992 whereby on a petition preferred by the private-respondents under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the amount of compensation granted by SLAO has been enhanced to Rs.1,500/- per biswa along with interest and solatium.

¶9

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that in absence of proper evidence on record, the Tribunal has enhanced the compensation without any basis which has rendered the impugned award dated 07.11.1997 bad in the eyes of law.

¶10

It is further urged that the land in question did not have any potential for raising construction nor it was within the vicinity which could witness development and without considering this aspect the award has been enhanced which indicates nonapplication of judicial mind by the Court concerned.

¶11

It is also urged that the Tribunal had noticed that no exemplar was filed by the respondents nor any evidence was led to indicate that the land acquired was having cultivatory potential, hence, ignoring the aforesaid, the Tribunal has committed an error. The judgment cited by the Tribunal had no applicability in determining the market value, hence, the decision was bad and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶12

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

¶13

The land belonging to the respondents bearing Plot No.289 situate in Gram Purana, Pargana and Tehsil Salon, District Raebareli. The said land was acquired for the purposes of Unchahar Thermal Power Station. The award was made on 28.03.1988 and the respondents being its Bhamidhar and interested persons being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.

¶14

The record further indicates that the ground raised by the respondents was that they have been granted lower compensation since the land which was contagious to the land of the respondents which was also acquired for the same Unchahar Thermal Power Station, a sum of Rs.1,500/- per biswa was granted, but the same was not given to the respondents.

¶15

The Tribunal seized with the reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 after exchange of pleadings framed the issues and permitted the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, scrutinizing the evidence and taking note of the fact that another order was passed in LAC No.191/1984 (Shiv Bux v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein in similar circumstances, the land acquired for the same Scheme was awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- per biswa and also taking note of the other relevant facts including that the land was near the Power Station, hence, the Tribunal in the instant case as well awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- per biswa to the respondents.

¶16

Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, it is not disputed that the land of the respondents was also acquired for the Unchahar Thermal Power Station. It could not be disputed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that another case of another tenure holder whose land was acquired in the same Scheme and the said person namely Shiv Bux had also preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 registered as LAC No.191/1984 wherein after due contest, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- per biswa.

¶18

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also not dispute the fact that against the order passed in LAC No.191/1984, the State did not assail the same and as such the said order had

¶19

attained finality. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also could not dispute the fact that the case of the respondents was similar to that of Shiv Bux. It could not be pointed out that what was difference in the land belonging to Shiv Bux and the land belonging to the present respondents so that they can be deprived or may not get the same compensation which contagious tenure-holder has been granted. Despite, vehement submissions of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel yet it could not be demonstrated how the land of present respondents was different to the one which was the subject matter of LAC No.191/1984.

¶20

Taking overall view as well as from the perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal which shows that the various contentions raised by the respondents did not find favour with the Tribunal, however, so far as the similarity of the land of the respondents with that of Shiv Bux could not be disputed and the Tribunal also noted the vicinity in which the land of the respondents was situated which was common to the land of Shiv Bux and thus has granted similar compensation which in the humble estimation of this Court cannot be faulted.

¶21

It will be relevant to mention that the Tribunal meticulously considered the evidence and also noticed that the order passed in LAC No.191/1984 was the safest mode to arrive at a conclusion as the said order had not been assailed by the State before any superior Court and thus has granted the compensation in light of its earlier decision passed in LAC No.191/1984.

¶22

This Court does not find that there is any merit in the instant appeal, accordingly, it is dismissed. The award passed by the reference Court in LAC No.14 of 1992 dated 07.11.1997 is confirmed. Consequence to follow. Costs are made easy.

¶23

The record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

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

State of U.P.through Collector Raibareli v. Rakesh Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P.through Collector Raibareli v. Rakesh Kumar 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

Sushil Kumar Singh and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Lily Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shafali Singh Thru Her Attorney Dr. Sanjay Singh vs Vivek Chauhan

Harishankar Verma and 5 Others vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 7 Others

Ejaj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home

Smt. Farheen Hasan vs Adeeb Alam Khan