Appeals by the State against judgments enhancing compensation and awarding interest in land acquisition cases. The appeals were dismissed by relying on a coordinate bench judgment as the lower court orders were found reasonable.
The connected First Appeals were dismissed for reasons given in the aforesaid precedent judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 86 of 1983 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thr. Collector Bahriach Respondent :- Heera Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- U.K.Srivastava
AND
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 87 of 1983 Appellant :- U.P. Government Through Collelctor Bahraich Respondent :- Jagdish Singh Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- U.K.Srivastava,R.P. Singh
AND
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 89 of 1983 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thr. Collector Bahraich Respondent :- Smt.Jadurai And Another. Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- U.K.Srivastava,R P Singh
AND
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 90 of 1983 Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Government Thru Collector Bahraich Respondent :- Udai Pratap Singh Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- U.K.Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
The connected First Appeal No. 88 of 1983, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shiv Pratap Singh, has been dismissed by means of the judgment and order dated 08.11.2010 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that these cases are also covered by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.11.2010, which is extracted hereinunder:-
"Both the appeals have been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and orders dated 16.07.1983 and 20.10.1983 passed by Special/Additional District Judge, Bahraich on the Review Application,
who has enhanced the rate of compensation as well as awarded the 6% interest respectively.
The brief facts of the case are that the lands of the claimant- respondent were acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer, Bahraich has awarded the compensation @Rs.2137.89 per acre for the land of Kachhar-III; and @Rs.4980.84 per acre for the land of Kachhar-II in the village Tikuiya. Being aggrieved, the claimant-respondent has filed a Reference before the Special/Additional District Judge, Bahraich who vide Its impugned order dated 16.07.1983 has enhanced the compensation pertaining to KachharIII only. Being aggrieved, First Appeal No. 88 of 1983 has been filed.
In the First Appeal No. 11 of 1984, the sole grievance is that the Additional District Judge vide order dated 20.10.1983 has awarded the interest @6% on the compensation as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Not being satisfied, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
With this background Sri P. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Special/Additional District Judge is against the law as he ignored the material on record. He further submits that as per the documentary evidence extracted from the Zild Bandobast 41-45 filed before the Additional District Judge to show that the land of Kachhar-II was better than the land of Kachhar-III but in the impugned order, the compensation was awarded at uniform rate. He also submits that the rate regarding Kachhar-III amounting Rs.2137.89 per acre was calculated on the basis of circle rate as recorded in the Zild Bandobast 41-45. He further submits that the exemplars of the sale deed were not considered by court below. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside.
None appeared on behalf of the claimant - respondent.
By considering the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and on the basis of the records, it appears that in the impugned order, the court below has taken the exemplars of the same village. All the sale deeds were executed in the year 1979 and were very close to the date of notification. The court below has not enhanced the compensation pertaining to the land of Kachhar-II but he has enhanced the compensation pertaining to the land of Kachhar-III @Rs.6172.84 per acre. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the court below appears reasonable as it is based on the sale deeds which were executed almost in the same year when the land of the claimant - respondent was also acquired. The market value has been determined in a fair way. Hence, I decline to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.07.1983.
So far as the appeal No. 11 of 1984 is concerned, the sole grievance of the appellant is pertaining to the 6% interest as awarded to the claimantrespondent on the award. The said Interest is as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order.
Thus, both the orders passed by the court below are hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.
The appeals being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
The amount, if any, deposited in this Court shall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant as per law."
In view of above, these appeals are also dismissed for the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.11.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 88 of 1983, State of U.P. vs. Shiv Pratap Singh and First Appeal No. 11 of 1984, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shiv Pratap Singh.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional District Judge's enhancement of compensation rates in land acquisition.
Whether the statutory 6% interest on award under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P. Thr. Collector Bahriach
Heera
U.P. Government Through Collelctor Bahraich
Jagdish Singh
State Of U.P. Thr. Collector Bahraich
Smt.Jadurai And Another.
Rajnish Kumar
Raj Nigam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
