Allahabad High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. vs Jagpal Singh And Others on 12 December, 2018
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 13.11.2018 Delivered on 12.12.2018 Court No. - 34 (1) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 96 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagpal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir,Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan, Vinayak Mithal, Suresh Chandra Gupta (2) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54510 of 2005 Objector :- Jagpal Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Madan Mohan, Vinayak Mithal, Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (3) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 60 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Zahir Ahmed And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan (4) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 61 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Pushkar Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai, Vinayak Mittal (5) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 62 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Munshi Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- A.L.Jaiswal, Anita Srivastava, B.Dayal, Sharve Singh, Suresh Chandra Gupta (6) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 63 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- A.L.Jaiswal,Anita Srivastava, B.Dayal, Sharve Singh, Vinayak Mittal (7) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 169 of 2014 Appellant :- Rajpal Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (8) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 64 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Omkar Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai, Vinayak Mittal (9) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 65 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Chauhal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai,Vinayak Mittal (10) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 721 of 2014 Appellant :- Chauhal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (11) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 66 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagpal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai, Vinayak Mittal (12) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 113 of 2014 Appellant :- Jagpal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (13) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 67 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Bhagat Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai,Vinayak Mittal (14) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 216 of 2012 Appellant :- Bhagat Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (15) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 68 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jameel Ahmed And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,Vinayak Mittal (16) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 69 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Gajraj And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai, Vinayak Mittal (17) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 196 of 2012 Appellant :- Gajraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, S.C. (18) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 70 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Vedram And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (19) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54541 of 2005 Objector :- Ved Ram Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (20) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 71 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (21) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54534 of 2005 Objector :- Rajpal Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (22) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 72 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Subhash Chandra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (23) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 73 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Baburam And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (24) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 74 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Virender Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (25) Case :- Cross Objection No. 2109 of 2007 Objector :- Virendra Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (26) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59158 of 2005 Objector :- Virendra Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (27) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 75 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jabbar Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai,B. Dayal,S.C. Gupta, Vinayak Mittal (28) Case :- Cross Objection No.2105 of 2007 Objector :- Jabbar Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (29) Case :- Cross Objection No. 328192 of 2009 Objector :- Jabbar Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (30) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 76 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Deepak And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (31) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54508 of 2005 Objector :- Deepak Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (32) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 77 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Rewati And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (33) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54532 of 2005 Objector :- Smt. Revti Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (34) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 78 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Onkar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :-Suresh Chandra Gupta (35) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 79 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagvira (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) and Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :-Suresh Chandra Gupta (36) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54530 of 2005 Objector :- Jagveer (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (37) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 80 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Salauddin And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (38) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 81 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharampal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (39) Case :- Cross Objection No. 329476 of 2009 Objector :- Dharampal and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (40) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 82 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajinder Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (41) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292852 of 2009 Objector :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (42) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 83 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Sardar Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (43) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292847 of 2009 Objector :- Sardar Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (44) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 84 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Nepal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai,B. Dayal, Vinayak Mittal (45) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 431 of 2012 Appellant :- Nepal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (46) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 85 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Satish Kumar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai, Suresh Chandra Gupta, Madan Mohan. (47) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 86 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dayawati And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai (48) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 87 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Subhash Chand And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai, Vinayak Mittal (49) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 641 of 2013 Appellant :- Subhash Chand And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinayak Mithal, B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (50) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 88 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharam Pal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai, Vinayak Mittal (51) Case :- Cross Objection No. 15338 of 2005 Objector :- Dharam Pal and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (52) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 90 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Omkar Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai,B. Dayal,Madan Mohan Chaurasisa, Suresh Chandra Gupta. (53) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 549 of 2015 Appellant :- Omkar Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (54) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 91 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Yashpal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (55) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 92 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Mahender Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (56) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 93 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Krishanveer Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (57) Case :- Cross Objection No. 4758 of 2008 Objector :- Krishan Veer Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (58) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 94 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Nepal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (59) Case :- Cross Objection No. 4755 of 2008 Objector :- Nepal Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (60) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 95 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (61) Case :- Cross Objection No. 4754 of 2008 Objector :- Raj Pal Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (62) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 97 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagvira Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (63) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54549 of 2005 Objector :- Jagbir Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (64) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 98 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Chote Lal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (65) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54545 of 2005 Objector :- Chotey Lal Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (66) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 99 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Bhopal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (67) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54536 of 2005 Objector :- Bhopal Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (68) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 100 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Keshu And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (69) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54524 of 2005 Objector :- Keshu and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (70) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 101 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir (71) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55780 of 2005 Objector :- Rajpal Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (72) Case :-Cross Objection No. 55788 of 2005 Objector :- Rajpal Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (73) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 102 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Nain Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (74) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54547 of 2005 Objector :- Nain Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (75) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 103 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Shyamwati And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (76) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292856 of 2009 Objector :- Smt. Shyamwati Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (77) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 104 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Ram Sharan And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (78) Case :- Cross Objection No. 2098 of 2007 Objector :- Dharam Pal Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (79) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54526 of 2005 Objector :- Ram Sharan and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (80) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 105 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharam Pal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal (81) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59161 of 2005 Objector :- Dharam Pal and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (82) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 106 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharamvir And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Ranjeet Saxena, Madan Mohan Chaurasisa (83) Case :- Cross Objection No. 288079 of 2009 Objector :- Dharamvir and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Ranjeet Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (84) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 119 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Vishamber & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir, Prashant Mishra,S.P. Gupta (85) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 120 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Noorjahan & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan Chaurasisa (86) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 122 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Banarasi & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir,S.P.Gupta (87) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 123 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Puran & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir,S.P.Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (88) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 124 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Alimuddin & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir,S.P. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan (89) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 125 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Shamshuddin & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir,S.P. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan, Vinayak Mittal (90) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 126 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Dharamvir & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal, Madan Mohan Chaurasisa (91) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 129 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Parshuram & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (92) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292839 of 2009 Objector :- Alok Kumar and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (93) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 130 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Rajvir & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir (94) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 131 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Govind & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan Chaurasisa (95) Case :- Cross Objection No. 282123 of 2009 Objector :- Govind Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (96) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 132 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Raisuddin & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan Chaurasisa (97) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 133 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Jahir Ahmed & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan (98) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 134 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Dal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir (99) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 135 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Ashok Kumar (Deceased) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir (100) Case :- Cross Objection No. 282109 of 2009 Objector :- Ashok Kumar and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (101) Case :- Cross Objection No. 298342 of 2009 Objector :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (102) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 136 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Parshuram & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (103) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292849 of 2009 Objector :- Parashuram Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (104) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 137 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Rajender & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (105) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292844 of 2009 Objector :- Rajendra and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (106) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 139 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Charan Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava (107) Case :- Cross Objection No. 298329 of 2009 Objector :- Charan Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (108) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 140 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Dharampal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (109) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292872 of 2009 Objector :- Dharam Pal and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (110) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 143 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Allah Banda & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan Chaurasisa, Vinayak Mittal (111) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 146 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Asmat Nasir & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava (112) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 147 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Nihal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava,S.P. Gupta (113) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 148 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Nihal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (114) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 152 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhondiya & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (115) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 153 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhopal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (116) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 211 of 2012 Appellant :- Bhopal Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (117) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 156 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Vedbir & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (118) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 215 of 2012 Appellant :- Vedvir And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava,S.C. (119) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 157 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Samay Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (120) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 604 of 2012 Appellant :- Samay Singh & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (121) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 158 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Jabbar Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (122) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 160 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhagat Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (123) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 670 of 2012 Appellant :- Bhagat Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (124) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 162 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Raghubar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (125) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 163 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Chandrabhan (Deceased) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (126) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 164 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Narender & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (127) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 165 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Jagan Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (128) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 214 of 2012 Appellant :- Jaggan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (129) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 168 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Mange Ram & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (130) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 169 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Nepal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (131) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 644 of 2013 Appellant :- Nepal & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vinayak Mithal, Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (132) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 170 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Nepal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (133) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 172 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhoondiya & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (134) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 213 of 2012 Appellant :- Bhondiya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (135) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 173 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Ahsan & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (136) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 217 of 2012 Appellant :- Ahsan Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (137) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 189 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Raj Kumar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (138) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55772 of 2005 Objector :- Raj Kumar and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (139) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 190 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Jagwati & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (140) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 191 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Dal Chand & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (141) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54543 of 2005 Objector :- Dal Chand and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (142) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 192 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Devkaran & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (143) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59164 of 2005 Objector :- Devkaran & Others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (144) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 193 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Indraj & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal (145) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59152 of 2005 Objector :- Murari Lal and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (146) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 194 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Narender Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (147) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55763 of 2005 Objector :- Narendra Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (148) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 195 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Rajpal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal (149) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59171 of 2005 Objector :- Rajpal Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (150) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 196 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Shivpal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (151) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59154 of 2005 Objector :- Shivpal Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (152) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 197 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Jai Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava (153) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55799 of 2005 Objector :- Jai Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (154) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 198 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Devendra Pal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (155) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54538 of 2005 Objector :- Devendra Pal and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (156) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 200 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Parmal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta, Vinayak Mittal (157) Case :- Cross Objection No. 21115 of 2006 Objector :- Parmal Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta, Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (158) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 201 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Chaman Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (159) Case :- Cross Objection No. 2103 of 2007 Objector :- Chaman Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (160) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 202 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Sher Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (161) Case :- Cross Objection No. 2097 of 2007 Objector :- Sher Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (162) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 203 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Surender (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (163) Case :- Cross Objection No. 26448 of 2007 Objector :- Rakesh Kumar and another Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (164) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55797 of 2005 Objector :- Rakesh Kumar and another Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (165) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 204 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Dheer Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (166) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55783 of 2005 Objector :- Dheer Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (167) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 205 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Salekchand (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (168) Case :- Cross Objection No. 2115 of 2007 Objector :- Satish Kumar Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (169) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 206 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Moolchand & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta (170) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55794 of 2005 Objector :- Mool Chand Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (171) Case :- Cross Objection No. 2102 of 2007 Objector :- Mool Chand Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- S.C. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (172) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 208 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Pramod & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (173) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55791 of 2005 Objector :- Pramod Kumar Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (174) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 209 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Sanjiv Kumar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (175) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55759 of 2005 Objector :- Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (176) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 210 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Jagdish Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (177) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55778 of 2005 Objector :- Jagdish Singh Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (178) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 211 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Nidan Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (179) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54528 of 2005 Objector :- Nidan Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (180) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 212 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Suresh Kumar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (181) Case :- Cross Objection No. 54512 of 2005 Objector :- Suresh Kumar Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (182) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 217 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Dharampal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava (183) Case :- Cross Objection No. 292836 of 2009 Objector :- Jabar Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (184) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 218 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Tejpal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava (185) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55769 of 2005 Objector :- Tejpal and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (186) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 219 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Satyapal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Gupta (187) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59169 of 2005 Objector :- Satyapal Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (188) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 220 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Vijay Kumar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (189) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55786 of 2005 Objector :- Vijay Kumar and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (190) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 234 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Sudha & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava (191) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59156 of 2005 Objector :- Smt. Sudha Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (192) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 235 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Ram Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (193) Case :- Cross Objection No. 55775 of 2005 Objector :- Ram Singh and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Vinayak Mittal Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (194) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 236 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Ashok & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava (195) Case :- Cross Objection No. 59166 of 2005 Objector :- Vijay Kumar and others Respondent :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Counsel for Objector :- Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava (196) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 632 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Chandra Bhan (Deceased) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal, Madan Mohan Chaurasisa (197) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 637 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Pushkar Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (198) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 753 of 2013 Appellant :- Pushkar Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinayak Mithal, B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai (199) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 638 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Samay Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (200) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 641 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhopal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B.Dayal,V.Sahai, Vinayak Mittal (201) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 643 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Amar Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinayak Mittal (202) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 647 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Satish Kumar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B.Dayal,V.Sahai, Madan Mohan, Suresh Chandra Gupta (203) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 648 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Jamil Ahmad & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (204) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 650 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Respondent :- Ilahibaksh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mittal (205) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 642 of 2013 Appellant :- Ilahibux (Deceased) & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal (206) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 669 of 2012 Appellant :- Bhondiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- B. Dayal,Vishnu Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Bhargava, Vinayak Mithal (207) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 640 of 2013 Appellant :- Rameshwar And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Mohan (208) Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 380 of 2017 Appellant :- Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector, Meerut & Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Mohan,M.M. Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- S.C., Piyush Bhargava Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. All these appeals have arisen from the land acquisition proceedings commenced with notification dated 13.02.1995 1995 issued under Section 4(1) read with section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") in respect of acquisition of land having area more than 70 hectors in villages 'Mataur' and 'Samauli Salempur', District Meerut, hence have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. In some of the appeals, there are some substitution applications. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, all such applications stand allowed.
2. 120 appeals under Section 54 of Act, 1894 have been filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "PGCIL") for whose benefit land in question was acquired and 21 appeals have been filed by land owners. Besides, in some appeals preferred by PGCIL, land owners have also filed cross objections/cross appeals which are 67 in total, though filed in 60 appeals. In 60 appeals single cross objection/cross appeals have been filed while in 7 appeals, two cross objections/cross appeals have been filed.
3. Before proceeding further, we may also place on record that 120 appeals of PGCIL as well as cross objections/cross appeals were earlier decided by this Court vide judgment dated 22.02.2016. This Court found that Reference Court determined market value on the basis of an exemplar sale deed which was in respect of 6000 square meters land while the area of acquired land in respect to several land owners was much smaller and other exemplar sale deeds were rejected only on the ground that the same pertain to smaller piece of land and this was not just and reasonable considering the fact that land which was acquired belong to a large number of land owners and their total land qua each individual land owner varies in size from 50 sq. meters to 41530 square meters and, therefore, a single rate for the entire segment of land was unjust as it amounts to treating unequals as equals. This Court, therefore, remanded the matter to Reference Court to redetermine market value in the light of the discussions made in the said judgment. A large number of land owners took up the matter in Supreme Court and filed Civil Appeals led by Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5429-5455 of 2017). All the appeals have been allowed by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 01.05.2017 observing that documents placed on record were sufficient to determine compensation and, therefore, remand to Reference Court was not justified. The judgment of Supreme Court reads as under:
"Leave granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it would have been proper for the High Court to decide the matter itself instead of remanding the matter to the Trial Court as the High Court had observed that no further evidence is required, as the documents adduced by the parties and the other evidence on record is sufficient to determine the compensation. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court and request the High Court to take up the matter on merits and decide itself the Appeals as well as cross objections in accordance with law. In case the High Court comes to the conclusion, while hearing the appeals, that it is necessary to record further evidence nothing prevents the High Court from exercising the power for doing complete justice. It may also direct recording of the evidence by Reference Court in case it is considered necessary and call for finding.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand accordingly allowed to the said extent."
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, all the appeals earlier decided have been restored and listed before us along with some other appeals which earlier remained undecided though arising from the same acquisition proceeding.
5. Heard Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Bhargava, Sri Pankaj Agarwal and Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, Advocates, for PGCIL and Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Vinayak Mithal, Sri B. Dayal and Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, Advocates for Claimants-Land Owners in this bunch of appeals.
6. The parties have chosen not to adduce any additional evidence. They matter and have requested the Court to hear and decide appeals on the basis of record of all these appeals whatever is available. We accordingly proceed to decide these appeals. However, as agreed by learned counsel for parties, we have taken facts and other reference from First Appeal No. 96 of 2005 (which is leading case) arising from Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as "LAR") No. 117 of 1998 and award dated 29.09.2004.
7. Before proceeding further, we may place on record that except 8, all these appeals have arisen from the award dated 29.09.2004 and 8 appeals are from award dated 26.04.2005.
8. The facts in brief giving rise to these appeals are as under.
9. For the purpose of establishing 765/400/220 KV Transmission Sub-Station, PGCIL proposed to acquire more than 70 hectares of land in village 'Mataur' and 'Samauli Salempur', District Meerut. These two villages are adjacent to each other. Proceedings for acquisition of land, forcibly, were initiated under the provisions of Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of Act, 1894 was issued on 13.2.1995 proposing to acquire 70.7562 hectares land (55.1754 hectares in village Mataur and 15.5840 hectares land in village Samauli Salempur). Notification under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) of Act, 1894 was published in Gazette dated 17.9.1995. Possession of acquired land was taken on 6.9.1996. The proposed acquisition included land in two villages of various Khasra numbers and areas, as detailed below : -
Village - Mataur :-
Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) 988 2892 989 13190 990 7450 991 680 992 424 993 1260 994 1390 995 320 996 1560 997 1030 998 1400 1000 3800 1001 630 1002 880 1003 488 1006 300 1014 1352 1027 1254 1028 6044 1029 4880 1031 9010 1033 1430 1034 1940 1035 1930 1036 2820 1038 5640 1039 6310 1040 50 1043 6590 1044 6500 1046 8800 1047 800 1048 790 1050 6190 1051 3060 1053 2260 1054 6210 1057 6110 1059 2720 1060 210 1061 1560 1063 1290 1064 1290 1065 1280 1067 6200 1070 880 1071 1010 1073 36620 1076 41530 1077 17780 1080 3740 1081 4070 1082 4650 1085 7170 1086 6560 1088 25860 1090 26970 1091 720 1093 1600 1094 760 1095 2400 1098 20 1099 20 1100 890 1101 6294 1164 272 1167 1680 1168 3450 1169 3650 1171 776 1174 816 1175 520 1176 584 1177 720 1180 220 1181 600 1195 320 1199 580 1200 1860 1203 6880 1204 1790 1207 22190 1208 4260 1209 4310 1212 21056 1213 1000 1216 6260 1217 1190 1218 1190 1219 1190 1222 5000 1224 1250 1225 1250 1226 1250 1227 1250 1229 25056 1230 12770 1231 1136 1236 1000 1249 8422 1253 360 1254 10420 1255 1840 1257 4620 1258 4408 1259 15650 1262 3960 1268 1256 1269 6628 1270 6910 1272 5960 1281 2552 Village - Samauli Salempur :-
Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) 144 208 183 4110 184 160 187 1700 188 1976 189 908 190 1056 191 1810 192 1810 193 1030 194 1008 195 750 196 750 198 4536 199 4056 201 1660 202 1656 205 239 206 240 207 3886 208 2540 210 2590 211 1030 212 1030 213 1030 214 4059 215 4142 227 16 230 16770 233 1600 234 1620 235 2080 237 2090 238 2080 240 6610 241 6620 242 3106 243 3186 244 3186 247 5380 250 3640 251 2504 252 2744 253 264 255 3890 394 780 395 26960 396 1672 397 320 399 7800 401 1208 403 1700
10. Notices under Section 9 were issued on 16.12.1995. Claimants-Land Owners filed objections claiming compensation at the rates, varying from Rs. 400/- to Rs.1500/- per sq. yard in village Mataur. In village Samauli Salempur, Claimants requested for compensation at Rs. 250/- to Rs.1500/- per sq. yard. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO') vide award dated 20.2.1998, following in principles, circle rate, nature of soil, sale deed at serial no. 95 of village Mataur as also Board of Revenue's letter dated 12.5.1992, determined market value as under :
Village - Mataur:-
fdLe tehu LfdZy jsV izfr gsDVs;j vftZr {ks=Qy gs0 esa nj izfr gsDVs;j ls0v0vk0 34-58 46&4187 3]29]718&48 ls0v0[kk0 33-83 1&0940 3]22]567&26 ls0nks0$vk0 29-41 0&9041 2]80]422&80 ls0nks0vk0 27-67 0&0717 2]53]831&99 ls0'kks0vk0 19-01 0&4385 1]81]259&35 ls0'kks0[kk0
-12-09 0&1194 1]15]277&51 Hkw0v0[kk0 13-83 1&2094 1]31]868&32 Hkw0nks0vk0 17-27 0&8911 1]54]668&54 Hkw0nks0[kk0 13-83 3&3858 1]31]868&32 Lis0iz0vk0
- 3-95 0&0903 37]663&04 Lis0iz0[kk0
-3-95 0&5524 37]663&04 Village - Samauli Salempur :-
fdLe tehu LfdZy jsV izfr gs0 vftZr {ks=Qy gDVs;j esa nj izfr gsDVs;j ls0v0vk0 32&61 8&3990 3]10]934&63 ls0nks0$vk0 26&17 1&5994 2]49]529&57 ls0v0vk0 22&73 4&5427 2]16]729&35 ls0v0[kk0 18&02 0&7350 1]71]819&75 ls0'kks0vk0 16&80 0&1280 1]60]187&11 Mk0v0vk0 18&02 0&1767 1]71]019&75
11. Almost all land owners felt dissatisfied with the offer made by SLAO and submitted applications for Reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894 to District Judge, Meerut for determining market value following principles laid down under Section 23 of Act, 1894.
12. Vide award dated 29.9.2004 Sri S.D. Paliwal, Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Meerut adjudicated 50 LAR's and determined market value at Rs.131/- per sq. meter.
13. Another award dated 26.4.2005, which has given rise to some appeals, has also been delivered by Sri S.D. Paliwal, Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Meerut adjudicating 21 LARs including LARs No. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 25 determining market value at Rs.131/- per square meter. Reference Court has followed award dated 29th September, 2004 in LAR No. 21 of 2002 and other connected references.
14. As we have already said this bunch consists of 120 First Appeals at the instance of PGCIL and 21 appeals by land owners. Besides 67 cross objections/appeals have been filed by land owners in 60 appeals of PGCIL. Out of 120 Appeals of PGCIL all are against the judgment and award dated 29.09.2004 except First Appeals No. 632, 637, 638, 641, 643, 647, 648 and 650 of 2005 which are against the judgment and award dated 26.04.2005. Similarly, out of 21 appeals of land owners, all are against the judgment and award dated 29.09.2004 except First Appeals No. 642 of 2013 and 753 of 2013.
15. A Chart giving details of names of land owners, Khasra No., area, LAR No., date of award and rate determined by SLAO etc. is given as under:-
Sl. no.
First Appeal of PGCIL Cross objection/ First Appeal by tenure holder LAR No. Date of Award Khata No. / Khasra No. Area in Sq. meter First name of tenure holder Rate of Compensation in Rupees per sq. meter by S.L.A.O. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 96 of 2005 CO 54510/05 117 of 1998 29.9.2004 128/1270 6910 Jagpal Singh & others 25/-
2. 60 of 2005
-
8 of 2002 29.9.2004 253 Zahir ahmad & others
3. 61 of 2005
-
2 of 1999 29.9.2004 212/1091 47840 Pushkar and anohter 10.99
4. 62 of 2005
-
13 of 1999 29.9.2004 314/1073, 1101 41914 Munshi Singh & Others 31.09
5. 63 of 2005 FA 169 of 2014 66 of 1998 29.9.2004 304/395 27740 Rajpal Singh and others 24.99
6. 64 of 2005
-
134 of 1998 29.9.2004 1086 6560 Onkar Singh and others 32.96
7. 65 of 2005 FA 721 of 2014 90 of 1998 29.9.2004 992, 990/171, 172 7874 Chauhal Singh & others
16.3
8. 66 of 2005 FA 113 of 2014 144 of 1998 29.9.2004 /699, 1085 7170 Jagpal Singh and another 32.95
9. 67 of 2005 FA 216 of 2012 8 of 1999 29.9.2004 1222/1014 5000 Bhagat Singh & others 16.49
10. 68 of 2005
-
72 of 1998 29.9.2004 /1029 5380 Jameed and others 25.09
11. 69 of 2005 FA 196 of 2012 69 of 1998 29.9.2004 255, 397/102 11690 Gajraj & others 21.18
12. 70 of 2005 CO 54541/05 101 of 1998 29.9.2004 1269/259 6628 Ved Ram Singh & Others 32.98
13. 71 of 2005 CO 54534/05 83 of 1998 29.9.2004 425/1204 17790 Raj Pal Singh & Others 32.96
14. 72 of 2005
-
81 of 1998 29.9.2004 1272/279 5960 Subhash Singh & Others 32.98
15. 73 of 2005
-
100/ 1998 29.9.2004 1259 15650 Bhanwar Singh(s/o Babu Ram (deceased) 32.97
16. 74 of 2005 CO 2109/07, 59158/05 12 of 1999 29.9.2004 1171 7840 Virendra Singh & others 19.85
17. 75 of 2005 CO 2105/07 328192/09 111 of 1998 29.9.2004 990, 992 11769.66 Jabbar Singh and others 11.41
18. 76 of 2005 CO 54508/05 39 of 1999 29.9.2004 1038 5640 Deepak Singh and ohters 32.98
19. 77 of 2005 CO 54532/05 20 of 1999 29.9.2004 515/1203 6880 Smt. Revti Singh and others 24.99
20. 78 of 2005
-
128 of 1998 29.9.2004 35/989 13190 Onkar Singh & another 13.18
21. 79 of 2005 CO 54530/05 129 of 1998 29.9.2004 1031/119 9310 Jagvir Singh and others 31.91
22. 80 of 2005
-
50 of 1998 29.9.2004 255/255 11690 Salauddin & others 3.8
23. 81 of 2005 CO 329476/09 86 of 1998 29.9.2004 990, 992 and 993/ 1060 9134 Dharampal Singh & others 15.86
24. 82 of 2005 CO 292852/09 105 of 1998 29.9.2004 1054 6210 Rajindra Singh & others 32.95
25. 83 of 2005 CO 292847/09 108 of 1998 29.9.2004 1070 8880 Sardar singh & others
26. 84 of 2005 FA 431 of 2012 94 of 1998 29.9.2004 1050/ 1027 6190 Nepal & others 32.97
27. 85 of 2005
-
87 of 1998 29.9.2004 1076/463 44050 Satish Kumar and others 31.69
28. 86 of 2005
-
6 of 1999 29.9.2004 1203 6880 Dayavati & others 10.45
29. 87 of 2005 FA 641 of 2013 89 of 1998 29.9.2004 1067/495 6200 Subhash Chand & others 2.15
30. 88 of 2005 CO 152338/05 65 of 1998 29.9.2004 240, 241/ 1200 13230 Dharampal Singh & Others
31. 90 of 2005 FA 549 of 2015 102 of 1998 29.9.2004 1213/ 1229 26026 Omkar singh & others 31.11
32. 91 of 2005
-
17 of 1999 29.9.2004 1090, 1091, 1212 3122.66 Yash pal & others 505.14
33. 92 of 2005
-
34 of 1999 29.9.2004 988, 1255,1258,1171 16900 Mahendra singh & others 15.8
34. 93 of 2005 CO 4758/08 139 of 1998 29.9.2004 1057/994 6110 Krishna Veer Singh & Others 32.98
35. 94 of 2005 CO 4755/08 135 of 1998 29.9.2004 1028 6044 Nepal singh & others 32.97
36. 95 of 2005 CO 4754/08 132 of 1998 29.9.2004 11751065 5200 Rajpal Singh & Others.
1.32
37. 97 of 2005 CO 54549/05 42 of 1998 29.9.2004 103/1039 6046 Jagvira Singh and others 23.86
38. 98 of 2005 CO 54545/05 118 of 1998 29.9.2004 1254/107 15040 Chote lal Singh & Others 32.88
39. 99 of 2005 CO 54536/05 123 of 1998 29.9.2004 1207/51 22190 Bhopal Singh & Others 31.93
40. 100 of 2005 CO 54524/05 124 of 1998 29.9.2004 1230/50 12770 Keshu Singh & Others 32.83
41. 101 of 2005 CO 55780/05, 55788/05 125 of 1998 29.9.2004 1039/379 6310 Shri Raj Pal & Others 32.98
42. 102 of 2005 CO 54547/05 78 of 1998 29.9.2004 1249/203 8422 Nain Singh & Others 32.84
43. 103 of 2005 CO 292856/09 106 of 1998 29.9.2004 1067 6200 Smt. Shyamwati & Others 30.1
44. 104 of 2005 CO 2098/07 54526/05 73 of 1998 29.9.2004 1077/1101 19220 Ram Saran Singh & Others 31.65
45. 105 of 2005 CO 59161/05 33 of 1999 29.9.2004 1043/990 6990 Dharam Pal Singh & Others
46. 106 of 2005 CO 288079/09 16 of 1999 29.9.2004 1044/1006 6580 Dharamvir Singh & Others
47. 119 of 2005
-
35 of 1998 29.9.2004 194 1808 Vishamber ( deceased).
26.59
48. 120 of 2005
-
49 of 1998 29.9.2004 189 900 Noorjahan & others 21.68
49. 122 of 2005
-
47 of 1998 29.9.2004 188 1976 Banarsi & others 21.68
50. 123 of 2005
-
48 of 1998 29.9.2004 235 2080 Puran & others 31.09
51. 124 of 2005
-
52 of 1998 29.9.2004 250 3640 Alimuddin & others 27.98
52. 125 of 2005
-
51 of 1998 29.9.2004 233 1600 Shamshuddin & others 31.09
53. 126 of 2005
-
107 of 1998 29.9.2004 1006/1043 300 Dharamvir & others 13.19
54. 129 of 2005 CO 292839/09 85 of 1998 29.9.2004 1051 3860 Parshuram Singh & Others 34.59
55. 130 of 2005
-
59 of 1998 29.9.2004 191 1810 Rajvir & others 21.68
56. 131 of 2005 CO 282123/09 57 of 1998 29.9.2004 /207 3886 Govind & others 29.67
57. 132 of 2005
-
58 of 1998 29.9.2004 234 1620 Raisuddin & Others 31.09
58. 133 of 2005
-
56 of 1998 29.9.2004 253 264 Jahir Ahmad & Others
59. 134 of 2005
-
110 of 1998 29.9.2004 1081/477 4070 Dal Singh & Others 32.96
60. 135 of 2005 CO 282109/05, 298342/09 15 of 1999 29.9.2004 995/1036 520 Ashok Kumar & Others 7.84
61. 136 of 2005 CO 292849/09 9 of 1999 29.9.2004 997/ 446.33 Parshuram & Others 30.44
62. 137 of 2005 CO 292844/09 3 of 1999 29.9.2004 1100 Ka 890 Rajendra Singh & Others 32.26
63. 139 of 2005 CO 298329/09 121 of 1998 29.9.2004 1046, 1047, 1048/89 2390 Charan Singh & Others 32.98
64. 140 of 2005 CO 292873/09 120 of 1998 29.9.2004 993 1260 Dharampal Singh & Others 13.19
65. 143 of 2005
-
19 of 2002 29.9.2004 2023 230 Allah Banda & Others 21.09
66. 146 of 2005
-
9 of 2002 29.9.2004 410 2740 Asmat Nasir & Others 4.53
67. 147 of 2005
-
38 of 1999 29.9.2004 196/195 850 Nihal Singh & Others 21.34
68. 148 of 2005
-
37 of 1999 29.9.2004 195/196 8500 Nihal Singh & Others 1.92
69. 152 of 2005
-
46 of 1998 29.9.2004 243/244 3186 Bhodiaya & Others 31.09
70. 153 of 2005 FA 211 of 2012 55 of 1998 29.9.2004 227 816 Bhopal Singh & others 22.66
71. 156 of 2005 FA 215 of 2012 64 of 1998 29.9.2004 2010/158 2590 Vedvir & others 30.29
72. 157 of 2005 FA 604 of 2012 67 of 1998 29.9.2004 144 208 Samay Singh & others 17.77
73. 158 of 2005
-
70 of 1998 29.9.2004 397/153 320 Jabbar Singh & others 28.95
74. 160 of 2005 FA 670 of 2012 93 of 1998 29.9.2004 126/1226 1250 Bhagat Singh and others 32.98
75. 162 of 2005
-
130 of 1998 29.9.2004 1082 4650 Rajhubar & others 32.98
76. 163 of 2005
-
71 of 1998 29.9.2004 187/1217 1700 Chandrabhan Singh & Others 20.85
77. 164 of 2005
-
141 of 1998 29.9.2004 1029/1029 1970 Narendar and another 32.98
78. 165 of 2005 FA 214 of 2012 142 of 1998 29.9.2004 1059 2720 Jagan Singh & Others 32.98
79. 168 of 2005
-
1 of 1999 29.9.2004 1064/239 2289 Mange Ram & Others 61.04
80. 169 of 2005 FA 644 of 2013 4 of 1999 29.9.2004 1100/1050 890 Nepal Singh & others 32.26
81. 170 of 2005
-
5 of 1999 29.9.2004 997 1030 Nepal Singh & others 2.19
82. 172 of 2005 FA 213 of 2012 113 of 1998 29.9.2004 244/243 3186 Bhondiaya & Others 31.09
83. 173 of 2005 FA 217 of 2012 62 of 1998 29.9.2004 403/14 170 Ahsan & others 29.96 84 189 of 2005 CO 55772/05 36 of 1998 29.9.2004 1998/346 4536 Raj Kumar Singh & Others 25.22
85. 190 of 2005
-
37 of 1998 29.9.2004 215/146 4142 Smt. Javati & Others 21.46
86. 191 of 2005 CO 54543/05 38 of 1998 29.9.2004 202/156 1650 Dal Chand & Others 25.05
87. 192 of 2005 CO 59164/05 39 of 1998 29.9.2004 211/167 1030 Dev Karan Singh & Others 29.03
88. 193 of 2005 CO 59152/05 40 of 1998 29.9.2004 201/47 1660 Murari Lal Singh & Others 22.88
89. 194 of 2005 CO 55763/05 41 of 1998 29.9.2004 214/1229 4059 Narendra Singh & Others 28.42
90. 195 of 2005 CO 59171/05 44 of 1998 29.9.2004 237/185 4170 Raj Pal Singh and others 31.09
91. 196 of 2005 CO 59154/05 74 of 1998 29.9.2004 1034/439 1940 Shivpal Singh & Others 32.98
92. 197 of 2005 CO 55799/05 75 of 1998 29.9.2004 1281/209 2552 Jai Singh & Others 32.88
93. 198 of 2005 CO 54538/05 76 of 1998 29.9.2004 1168/162 3450 Devendra Pal & Others 32.98
94. 200 of 2005 CO 21115/06 79 of 1998 29.9.2004 1236/227 1080 Paramlal Singh & Others 20.41
95. 201 of 2005 CO 2103/07 80 of 1998 29.9.2004 1053/529 2260 Chaman Singh & Others 32.98
96. 202 of 2005 CO 2097/07 82 of 1998 29.9.2004 1029/578 1010 Sher Singh & Others 32.98
97. 203 of 2005 CO 26448/07, 55797/05 84 of 1998 29.9.2004 468/1174 816 Surendra Singh and others 13.19
98. 204 of 2005 CO 55783/05 95 of 1998 29.9.2004 1224 1250 Dheer Singh & Others 32.98
99. 205 of 2005 CO 2115/07 97 of 1998 29.9.2004 1268/490 1256 Salekchand singh & Others 32.96
100. 206 of 2005 CO 55794/05, 2102/07 98 of 1998 29.9.2004 1231/562 1136 Mool Chand & anothers 15.57
101. 208 of 2005 CO 55791/05 103 of 1998 29.9.2004 1225 1250 Pramod Singh & Others 32.98
102. 209 of 2005 CO 55759/05 104 of 1998 29.9.2004 1227 1250 Sanjeev Kumar and others 32.98
103. 210 of 2005 CO 55778/05 114 of 1998 29.9.2004 1035 1930 Jagdish Singh & others 32.98
104. 211 of 2005 CO 54528/05 19 of 1999 29.9.2004 1029/542 1900 Nidan Singh & Others
105. 212 of 2005 CO 54512/05 21 of 1999 29.9.2004 462/1222 5000 Suresh Singh & Others 8.25
106. 217 of 2005 CO 292836/09 112 of 1998 29.9.2004 205/240 229 Dharampal Singh & Others 26.26
107. 218 of 2005 CO 55769/05 18 of 1999 29.9.2004 1169 3650 Tej Pal Singh & Others 32.98
108. 219 of 2005 CO 59169/05 60 of 1998 29.9.2004 81/ 2086 Satya Pal Singh & Others 26.33
109. 220 of 2005 CO 55786/05 40 of 1999 29.9.2004 1000/433 380 Vijay Kumar Singh & Others 13.19
110. 234 of 2005 CO 59156/05 7 of 1999 29.9.2004 1222/462 5000 Smt. Sudha Singh & Others 8.25
111. 235 of 2005 CO 55775/05 126 of 1998 29.9.2004 1040/380 50 Ram Singh ( deceased ) & Others
112. 236 of 2005 CO 59166/05 115 of 1998 29.9.2004 998 Kha/ 995 700 Ashok Singh and others 12.33
113. 632 of 2005
-
11 of 2002 26.4.2005 187 540 Chandra Bhan ( deceased) 20.29
114. 637 of 2005 FA 753 of 2013 25 of 2002 26.4.2005 1090/1212 1220 Pushkar Singh & others 32.58
115. 638 of 2005
-
12 of 2002 26.4.2005 144 650 Samay Singh and others 17.29
116. 641 of 2005
-
14 of 2002 26.4.2005 227 1290 Bhopal Singh & others 22.21
117. 643 of 2005
-
20 of 2002 26.4.2005 /195 Amar Singh & others
118. 647 of 2005
-
23 of 2002 26.4.2005 1195 580 Satish Kumar & others 7.09
119. 648 of 2005
-
16 of 2002 26.4.2005 247/149 2330 Jami Ahmad & others 24.42
120. 650 of 2005 FA 642 of 2013 15 of 2002 26.4.2005 43/396 120 Ilahibaksh & others 21.72
121.
-
FA 669 of 2012 41 of 1998 29.9.2004 243 3186 Bhondia 31.09
122.
-
FA 640 of 2013 7 of 2002 29.9.2004 226 810 Rameshwar and another 21.32
123.
-
FA 380 of 2017 41 of 2002 29.9.2004 254 3801 Prakash 26.62
16. Before Reference Court, land owners pleaded that on an average, rate awarded by SLAO is at Rs.25/- per sq. meter which is wholly inadequate and unreasonable. They are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. meter. Land owners pleaded that acquired land is situated at Meerut-Muzaffar Nagar G.T. Road and Near Meerut City. It is suitable for residential purposes and has potential for development. Near acquired land, there existed Daurala Sugar Mill and its ancillary units. Township Daurala and commercial centers are also not far away from acquired land. Abadi of village Mataur is near acquired land. Veterinary Hospital, Primary Health Center, Secondary and Primary Schools, Petrol Pump, Cold Storage and Bank etc. are also existing near acquired land.
17. PGCIL contested claim on the ground that Daraula Sugar Mill and other ancillary units are far away. Acquired land is actually being used for agricultural purposes and would require a good amount for its development. Abadi of Meerut city is about 7 to 8 Kilometers and land abutting road is only about 80 square meters. Rest is going deep inside upto about 1.1 kilometer.
18. Reference Court formulated five issues. Relevant issues 1 and 2, substantial for adjudication of market value of acquired land, read as under :
^^1- D;k vftZr Hkwfe dh cktkjh nj ,okMZ vUrxZr /kkjk 11 Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] ds vuqlkj mfpr gS] ;fn ugha rks mfpr izfrdj dh nj D;k gS\ "1. Whether the market rate of the acquired land is proper according to the award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act? If not, what is the rate of reasonable compensation?"
2- D;k vftZr Hkwfe d`"kd Hkwfe Fkh vkSj mldk mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx d`f"k dk;Z ds fy, fd;k tk jgk Fkk vFkok vfTkZr Hkwfe fdl Hkkofud o vkS|ksfxd {kerk dh Hkwfe Fkh\** "2. Whether the acquired land was agricultural land and was being used and utilized for agricultural purpose and what degree of building & industrial capacity the acquired land had?"
(English Translation by Court)
19. Reference Court in award dated 29.9.2004 treated LAR No. 117 of 1998 as leading case and rest 49 LARs were clubbed with it. Evidence was recorded collectively.
20. In support of Claimants-Land Owners, four witnesses i.e. Jagpal Singh-PW-1, S.K. Tyagi-PW-2, Jasbir Singh-PW-3 and Surendra Singh-PW-4 were examined,while on behalf of defendants,Jahid Parvez was examined as DW1.
21. The documentary evidence adduced by Claimants-Land Owner comprised of sale deeds ( Paper No. 14C to 19C and 22C to 27C), Shijra (Paper No. 31C), Notification (Paper No. 28C) and circle rate (Paper No. 29C). Some sale-deeds relied by Claimants-Land Owners are as under:
Sl No. Nature of document and date Vendor Vendee Area (in sq. meters) Rate (per sq. meter) 1 Sale-deed dt. 25.4.1994 (paper No.20 Ga) Jasbir Singh, Ashok Kumar Smt. Chirauji 165.35 sq. meter Rs.300/-2
Sale-deed dt. 23.5.1994 (Paper No. 21Ga) Santosh Giri Smt. Babita 165.55 sq. meter Rs.300/-
3 Sale-deed dt. 28.4.1994 (paper No.22Ga) Ram Chandra Singh Smt. Kusum Bala .36.088 Rs.300/-
4 Sale-deed/08.12.94 (paper No.23Ga) Rajeev Singh Smt. Rajesh 117 Rs.300/-
5 Agreement to sell dt. 29.4.1994 (paper No.24 Ga) Vikas (minor through his mother Smt. Bhagwati) M/s D.C.M. Shree Ram Industries Ltd.
3161.12 sq. yard Rs.150/- sq. yard.
22. PGCIL adduced documentary evidence comprising sale deed (Paper No. 40C).
23. Land Owners pointed out that sale deed dated 26.5.1995, relied by SLAO, was executed by Richpal Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Dayawati and aunt Smt. Rewati, transferring 7000 square meter of land. The document was suspicious for the reason that there was no occasion for a husband to transfer land to his wife and aunt . It was an ingenuine transaction. Reference Court found that Richpal Singh had indulged in a large number of court cases and may be for avoiding any liability, aforesaid document was executed. Wife was residing with Richpal and there was no valid and genuine reason for such sale transaction. Court below, therefore, held that reliance on sale deed dated 26.5.1995 executed by Rich Pal by SLAO, for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. meter, was erroneous. Since this very sale deed was relied by PGCIL before Reference Court also, the same stood rejected.
24. Reference Court then considered exemplars cited by Claimants-Land Owners and found that most sale deeds relate to very small piece of land executed for consideration at Rs. 300/- per sq. meter. It held that the same could not have been treated ideal exemplars since acquired land is quite big. Though transaction appear to be for commercial purpose but for the purpose of acquisition of 70 hectares and more land those exemplars of small size of land were not valid. Thus, Reference Court, in nutshell, rejected all such exemplars except sale-deed dated 11.3.1996 executed by Richpal Singh and Om Prakash through their attorney Anang Pal in favour of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "VSNL") transferring 6000 sq. meter land, at the rate of Rs. 131.50 square meter. Court also observed that Notification under Section 4(1) was published in June, 1995 and sale-deed is dated 11.3.1996 is quite nearer to the said Notification; area of land transacted under the aforesaid sale-deed was also 6000 sq. meter and, therefore it was proper exemplar. Following the same, it determined market rate at Rs.131/- per sq. meter.
25. Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for PGCIL contended that frontal part of acquired land abutting G.T. Road was small and acquired land was deep in depth going to the extent of about 1.2 Kilometer from G.T. Road. He further stated that the area of acquired land of different Land Owners extremely vary in size. As already noticed, the size varying from 50 square meters to more than 41000 square meters, therefore, Reference Court by applying rate of Rs. 131/- per square meter, which was in respect to a land abutting G.T. Road, has erred in law inasmuch as the land which was much far away from G.T. Road could not have been assessed with market value as would have been fetched by a land abutting G.T. Road. It is, thus, contended that entire land being treated as a single piece of land and applying the rate which was in respect to a land which was abutting G.T. Road is arbitrary, illegal and shows unjust and inequitable determination of market value of the acquired land. He contended that in a case like present one, Reference Court ought to have applied 'belting system' instead of applying a common market value. In this regard he placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgments in Union of India and others Vs. Mangatu Ram (1997) 6 SCC 59, Savitri Cairae Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another (2003) 6 SCC 255 and Bijender and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (2018) 11 SCC 180. He also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jagdish and others 1999 All.LJ 2344.
26. Sri Verma, further contended that price fetched for small plots of land cannot serve as a Benchmark for valuation of large tracks and similarly land situated in interior cannot be treated alike the land abutting road or near the road. In support thereof, he placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150, Gafar and others Vs. Moradabad Development Authority (2007) 7 SCC 614 and Chimanlal Hargovind Das Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3 SCC 751.
27. He also argued that in a case where land is undeveloped, development deduction has to be applied which has not been done by Reference Court in the case in hand and in support thereof he placed reliance on the judgments in Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC 262, Chandra Shekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2012) 1 SCC 390, Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 and Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2010) 1 SCC 444.
28. He, thus, contended that Reference Court has erred in law in determining market value of entire extremely big chunk of land by applying a single rate and has failed to appreciate that land of different Owners was differently placed qua location, areawise and others relevant factors and, therefore, could not have been treated in a same way ignoring various distinguishing characteristics like size, situational advantages and disadvantages etc.
29. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for Land Owners contended that the exemplar of a much bigger chunk of land, i.e., 6000 square meter has been applied in respect to the land which was much small in size and would have fetched much higher rate. They also contended that corresponding period sale deed exemplars were cited but have been ignored on the ground that area of land, subjected to transactions in those exemplars, was smaller while in most of the cases area of land acquired by State for the benefit of PGCIL was also much smaller and vary from 50 to 1000 square meters but the same has also been applied the rate of a land which was about 6000 sq. meters. Thus, unequals have been treated equally and enhancement in rates in respect to the smaller size land has not been allowed or considered while applying the rate of much larger size of land. It is submitted that the sale deeds showing sale consideration of Rs. 300/- per square meter have been wrongly and illegally ignored.
30. Learned counsel for Land Owners contended that besides sale deeds, i.e., Paper No. 20Ga to 24Ga some more sale-deeds were relied before Reference Court but during the course of arguments when this Court pointed out, it was admitted that same relates to subsequent period, i.e., 11.03.1996, 01.05.1998 and 05.03.2002 while the relevant date which is to be considered in this case is date of notification under Section 4(1), i.e., 13.02.1995 and hence subsequent sale deeds are of no relevance.
31. Learned counsel for Land Owners, however, contended that land at the time of acquisition was situated in an already developed area and, therefore, higher market value should have been determined. Even if rate of Rs. 300/- per square meter shown in the sale deed exemplars was not acceptable and principle of deduction towards size of the land was to be applied, still at the best 25 per cent to 33.33 per cent deduction could have been applied and that would have led market value of to Rs. 200/- to 225/- per square meter but Court below has awarded compensation determining market value at a common rate of Rs. 131/- per square meter which is unreasonable, inadequate, unjust and highly lower than the adequate and fair market value of acquired land on the date of acquisition. It is further submitted that no deduction towards development was applicable in the case in hand. Agreement for sale also could have been followed and relied, in absence of any reason to treat any such document as a sham transaction particularly when it ultimately resulted in execution of sale deed. They also argued that for the purpose of applying principle of largeness of area, it is not the entire acquired land which belong to different land owners can be treated to be a single piece of land but size of acquired land has to be looked into in the light of the size of land belong to different Land Owners.
32. Learned counsels for both the parties, beside the authorities referred to above, relied on several authorities which we propose to discuss at a later stage.
33. From the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, in our opinion, following points for determination have arisen:
(i) Whether Reference Court has rightly determined market rate of Rs. 131/- per square meter of entire acquired land irrespective of area of individual plots of Land Owners, their location and other relevant factors?
(ii) Whether Reference Court ought to have considered the question of determination of market value, with reference to entire area of acquired land, its location/situation and other developmental advantages/ disadvantage vis-a-vis relevant exemplars or it should be vis-a-vis different plots of different Land Owners?
(iii) Where area of acquired land is very large and from main G.T. Road, land goes in the deep to the extent of more than 1.1 kilometers, whether 'Belting System' ought to have been applied and Court below has erred in law by not applying 'Belting System'.
(iv) Whether Court below has rightly followed exemplar sale-deed dated 11.3.1996 executed in favour of VSNL or has erred in law in rejecting other exemplar sale-deeds or agreement for sale ultimately resulted in a sale deed, relied by Claimant-Land Owners and placed in evidence?
(v) Whether Reference Court has considered and applied relevant principles and factors applicable for determination of market value and principles under Section 23 of 1894?
34. All the aforesaid issues are interrelated, and therefore, we are considering the same together.
35. Before examining the aforesaid issues on merits, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye view of relevant legal principles settled in last several decades, which are to be applied when market value of a land acquired forcibly under the provisions of Act, 1894 has to be determined by Court in a Reference made under Section 18 of the said Act.
36. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), Court has said that a reference is like a suit which is to be treated as an original proceeding. The Claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that price offered for his land in the Award is inadequate. However, for the said purpose, Court would not consider the material, relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer in Award, unless some material is produced and proved before Court.
37. Thus, Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the Award of Land Acquisition Officer. Material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by Court suo motu unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rate, prevailing on the date of publication of notification under section 4 (1) of Act, 1894. Circle Rate- Relevance:
38. As we have noticed that the Reference Court referred to circle rate and the letter of Board of Revenue though these documents are irrelevant and ought not to have been considered by SLAO. In the matters where circle rates are relied and referred by SLAO such an approach has been castigated, condemned and disapproved by Courts time and again.
39. In Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, this question came up for consideration in the matter arisen from State of Andhra Pradesh. The landowners appealed against order of Reference Court before Andhra Pradesh High Court claiming higher compensation on the basis of the basic valuation register maintained by Revenue authorities under Stamp Act, 1899. The claim of land owners failed in High Court, which held that such register had no evidenciary value on statutory basis. In appeal, Apex Court held that basic valuation register was maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty under Section 47-A of Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in State of Andhra Pradesh. It did not confer expressly any power upon the Government to determine market value of land prevailing in a particular area, i.e., village, block, district or region. It also did not provide, a statutory obligation upon Revenue authorities to maintain basic valuation register for levy of stamp duty in regard to instruments presented for registration. Therefore, there existed no statutory provision or rule providing for maintaining such valuation register. In the circumstances, such register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty had no statutory force or basis and cannot form a valid criteria to determine market value of land acquired under Act, 1894. This decision was followed in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Jasti Rohini, 1995 (1) SCC 717.
40. Another matter from State of U.P. came up for consideration involving same issue in U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124. Landowners' demanded compensation in regard to land acquired under Act, 1894 on the basis of market value assessed as per circle rate determined by Collector. It was accepted by High Court, but in appeal, judgment was reversed by Supreme Court following its earlier decision in Jawajee Nagnatham (supra). Court held that market value under Section 23 of Act, 1894 cannot be determined on circle rates determined by Collector for the purpose of stamp duty under Stamp Act, 1899. This view was reiterated in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Bipin Kumar, (2004) 2 SCC 283.
41. The issue has again been considered recently by a larger Bench in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another (supra) wherein two Judgments of Apex Court taking a view that circle rates may be considered, as prima facie basis, for the purpose of ascertaining the market value were examined. These decisions are Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector, (1999) 5 SCC 62 and R Sai Ram Bharathi v. J Jayalalitha, (2004) 2 SCC 9. The Court resolved controversy holding, if in a particular case, guidelines for market values are determined by an Expert Committee constituted under State Stamp Law for following a detailed procedure laid down under the relevant rules and are published in State Gazette, the same may be considered as a relevant material to determine market value. Court said, when guidelines of market value, i.e., minimum rates for registration of properties, are so evaluated and determined by Expert Committees, as per statutory procedure, there is no reason why such rates should not be a relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value. Having said so, in para 44, Court further said:-
"44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees, as expert evidence can, therefore, form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may."
42. It is thus evident that for the purposes of determining market value circle rate fixed by Collector for the purposes of stamp duty would not be a relevant material unless such determination is under a statutory obligation and after following a prescribed procedure. Other Principles relevant for determining market value:
43. For determining the market value of acquired land in the last several decades Courts have considered the matter time and again and laid down certain principles which includes; (i) Court should proceed as hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from open market and prepared to pay a reasonable price on the scheduled date, i.e., the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of Act 1894, (ii) willingness of vendor to sale the land on reasonable price shall be presumed, (iii) relevant material, which may help the Court to find out the reasonable price would include sale deeds, if any, executed in the close proximity of the relevant date which is genuine and shows a voluntary and open transaction between the parties. Where land subject matter of exemplar sale deed is smaller or larger but the document otherwise is credible and genuine, suitable adjustment by applying plus and minus factors and also appropriate deduction can be made by the Court.
44. A burden, however, to establish as to what is the reasonable and adequate market value and that the offer made by the Collector is inadequate is on the landowners at whose instance Reference has been made to District Judge under Section 18 of Act, 1894.
45. The size of land would constitute an important factor to determine market value. It cannot be doubted that small size plot may attract a large number of persons being within their reach which will not be possible in respect of large block of land wherein incumbent will have to incur extra liability in preparing a lay out and carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers etc. Courts have said that in such matters, factors can be discounted by making deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging between 20% to 50%, to account for land, required to be set apart for carving out road etc. and for plotting out small plots.
46. The concept of smaller and larger plots should be looked into not only from the angle as to what area has been acquired, but also the number of land holders and size of their plots.
47. When we talk of concept of prudent seller and prudent buyer, we cannot ignore the fact that in the category of prudent seller, the individual land holder will come. It is the area of his holding which will be relevant for him and not that of actual, total and collective large area, which is sought to be acquired.
48. In Kausalya Devi Bogra and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, (1984) 2 SCC 324, about 150 acres of land was acquired. Owners of acquired land were in two groups, i.e. Kaushalya Devi Bogra and Syed Yusufuddin Syed Ziauddin. First group, i.e. Kaushalya Devi Bogra owned 74 acres, while Yusuffuddin owned about 15 acres of land. In these facts of case where almost 60% of total acquired land was owned by two sets of owners and exemplar of smaller property was relied, Court said that "when large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. In certain other cases, for determining market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, a deduction should be given.
49. In Bhagwathula Samnna and others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality (1991) 4 SCC 506, High Court applied deduction of 33.3% observing, when large extent of land was acquired under housing scheme and exemplar is of small land, reasonable deduction can be made. Following the decision in Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417, it was argued before Apex Court that High Court wrongly applied deduction. Acquired land was fully developed and eminently suitable for being used as house sites and, therefore, there was no justification for making any deduction. The land was acquired for formation of road, High Court applied deduction on the ground that expenses have to be incurred for development, which was not justified. Aforesaid submission was considered by Supreme Court in the light of facts of that case. In para 7 and 11 Court said: -
"7. In awarding compensation in acquisition proceedings, the Court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant notification. It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisages the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in an important locality may fetch a higher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shown in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller property cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property. In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction.
11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reasons that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified."
50. Court further held that proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account price fetched by small plots of land. If larger tract of land, because of advantageous position, is capable of being used for the purpose for which smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of value for the purposes of comparison is not warranted. Having said so, Court in para 13 held as under: -
"13. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilize the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs.10/- pr square yard to Rs.6.50 paise pr square yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases."
51. In V.M. Salgoacar & brother Ltd. vs. Union of India (1995) 2 S.C.C 302, land acquired by notification dated 06.07.1970 in village Chicalim near Goa Airport belonged to a single owner. Court observed, when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. Having said so Court further said " though the small plots ipso facto may not form the basis per se to determine the compensation, they would provide foundation for determining the market value. On its basis, giving proper deduction, the market value ought to be determined".
52. Again in Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) S.C.C 152, 20 acres of land in Akola town was sought to be acquired by notification published on 11.08.1965 under section 4(1) of Act, 1894 which was also owned by a single person. It is in this context, Court said, "the Reference Court committed manifest error in determining compensation on the basis of sq. ft. When land of an extent of 20 acres is offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously "no".
53. In order to determine market value when exemplars are adduced, normally it is found that exemplars of small land, and that too, in developed area after plotting and development are relied. Sometimes a single exemplar is available and sometimes more than that. It is not the number of exemplars which is important and would determine the question whether burden has been discharged by Claimants that offer of compensation made by Collector is inadequate and he is entitled to higher compensation but it is the genuity, authenticity and creditworthiness of the documents. If the document is found most suitable and appropriate for determining compensation in respect of acquired land even a single instance/exemplar cited by landowner may be relied and it can be said that Claimant-Land Owner has succeeded in discharging his burden.
54. In Gafar vs. Moradabad Development Authority, 2007 (7) SCC 614, the Court observed that burden is on the Claimants to establish that amount awarded to them by Collector is inadequate. That burden has to be discharged by Claimants and only if initial burden in that behalf is discharged, the burden would shift to State to justify the compensation offered by SLAO.
55. Further, when there are more than one exemplar, one, which provides highest rate, has to be followed. In Satish Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (14) SCC 758, Court after relying on its earlier decision in Viluben Jhalenjar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (4) SCC 789, said :
"...when comparable exemplars are brought on record, the one carrying the highest market value amongst them may be followed."
Deductions:
56. Whenever the area of acquired land is larger than the area of land which is subject matter of the exemplar and smaller in size, Courts have held the same admissible subject to appropriate deduction.
57. In Basavva (Smt.) and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 9 SCC 640, notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 proposing to acquire 194 acres of land for industrial development near Dharwad was published on 30.10.1981. Collector made award dated 22.8.1985 offering compensation at the rate between Rs. 8,000/- to Rs.8,080/-, which was enhanced by Reference Court vide award dated 11.10.1988 to Rs.1.72/- per square fit (Rs.74,953/- per acre). On appeal High Court reduced compensation to Rs.56,000/- per acre. The appeal preferred by State Government against High Court's judgment was dismissed.
58. In the appeals preferred by landowners, it was contended on behalf of landowners that deduction towards development upto 53% was reasonable but High Court in applying 65% deduction has erred in law. Court observed, while determining compensation, at first instance, it has to be seen whether sales relating to smaller pieces of land are genuine and reliable; and, whether they are in respect of comparable land. If it is found that sales are genuine and reliable and lands have comparable features, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at a just and fair market value of large tracts of land. The time lag for real development and waiting period for development are also relevant for determination of just and comparable compensation. For deduction of development charges, nature of development, conditions and nature of land, the land required to be set apart under building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water etc. and all other relevant circumstances involved are to be considered.
59. The above principles were also laid down in D. Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1995) 5 SCC 426 which was relied by Court in Basavva (Smt.) & Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others (supra). It then found that exemplar sale deed was dependable but in respect of a small plot of land situated at a distance of more than 1 k.m. It also found that the land in area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. It was also noticed that it would take years for development in those lands though lands was capable of user for non-agricultural purpose. It is in this background, Court applied 53% deduction for development. It further held that since a long time would take for development and for that purpose additional 12% deduction was allowed making total as 65% deduction.
60. In Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others, AIR 2004 SC 1031 and said as under :
"It has been held that the deduction can be made where the land is acquired for residential and commercial purpose with regard to roads and civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price, the profits on the venture etc. So far as this Court is concerned, it has discarded the deduction policy on various grounds. One of the grounds is that if the State or its authority acquires the land for the purpose of selling it to the ultimate purchasers upon making available facilities, they normally recover the price inclusive of common facilities, therefore, a Government or its authority cannot be doubly benefited either by deductions from the payment of compensation in one hand and by collections of price of such development from the ultimate purchasers on the other hand. It also to be seen that no law prescribes deduction in paying compensation. It is to be remembered that deduction is an exception not the rule."
61. In Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2010 (12) SCC 51, by notification dated 17.5.1990, 162.5 acres of land in village Patti Musalmanan was sought to be acquired for the purposes of housing project in Sonepat (Haryana). Collector determined compensation at the rate of Rs.Two Lacs per acre, but it was enhanced by Additional District Judge on reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894 to Rs.125/- per square yard for the land behind E.C.E. Factory, situated away, and on the left side of the Sonepat Bahalgarh road, and Rs.150/- per square yard on the right side abutting the road. Reference Court held that land on the left side did not abut the road and it had therefore less potential value vis-a-vis land on the right side, which touched the road. In appeal High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.135/- and from Rs.150/- to Rs.160/-. Land owner came in appeal before Supreme Court claiming compensation at Rs.200/- per square yard. Court, as a matter of fact, found in that case that even compensation, which was determined by Collector or Reference Court was not paid to land owners immediately, but payment spread over for two decades. Court said if compensation payment continued over a period of almost 20 years, potential of land acquired from land owners must also be adjudged keeping in view development in the area, spread over the period of 20 years if evidence so permits and cannot be limited to near future alone. Court observed that this broad principle would be applicable where possession of land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of Government and is subsequently acquired.
62. The Court also observed that in case where compensation is based exclusively on sale instances, it creates some time a disadvantageous position to land owners, whose land is forcibly acquired. There is wide spread tendency to undervalue sale prices. Circle rates determined by Collector only marginally corrected anomaly, as these rates are also abnormally low and do not reflect true value. These things cause serious disadvantage to land owners, since they have no control over price on which some other land owners sell their property, which is often the basis for compensation payable to land owners, whose land are forcibly acquired. Court also held that there cannot be application of belting system in that case. Normally, land along side the road has more value vis-à-vis the land away from, but that would have been the case where agricultural land, which have no potential for urbanization or commercialization had been acquired and in such a case, belting system is permissible.
63. In Udho Dass (supra) Court held that land was acquired in 1990. It had great potential and had been completely urbanized as huge residential complexes, industrial area and estates, huge education city have come up in the last 10 or 15 years. It further held as under: -
"Moreover, insofar as land which is to be used for residential purposes is concerned, a plot away from the main road is often of more value as the noise and the air pollution alongside the arterial roads is almost unbearable. It also significant that the land of Jamalpur Kalan was touching the rear side of the ECE factory and the High Court had granted compensation of Rs.250/- per square yard for the acquisition of the year 1992. We have also seen the site plan to satisfy ourselves and find that the land acquired from Jamalpur Kalan and the present land share a common boundary behind the ECE factory. The belting system in the facts of the present case would thus not be permissible."
64. In Anjani Molu Desai v. State of Goa and another, (2010) 13 SCC 710, a very large tract comprising 3,65,375 square meter of land in Balli village, Quepem Taulak, Goa was acquired for the purposes of Konkan Railway for laying down broad gauge line. Acquisition notification was issued on 30.7.1991. Appellant Anjani Molu Desai owned 60,343 square meter of land in Survey No.45/1, 45/5, 45/6, 51/1 and 51/2. Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square meter for orchard lands and Rs.6/- per square meter for paddy lands. Reference Court and High Court affirmed said valuation by rejecting reference and appeal. Collector determined market value relying upon two exemplars and taking an average thereof. First exemplar sale deed dated 30.8.1989 relates to 2055 square meters of land situated at the distance of 200 meter away from acquired land and sold at the rate of Rs.43.80 per square meter. Collector deducted 45% from sale price towards "development cost" i.e. for providing approach road and open spaces, expenses relating to development work, conversion charge etc. This reduced price from Rs.24/- per square meter. Since sale deed was of August, 1989 and acquisition commenced in 1991, thus there being gap of 20 months, Collector provided an increase at the rate of 14.5% per annum and thus, arrived at Rs.32.24 per square meter. Exemplar sale deed dated 30.1.1990 relates sale of 7600 square meters of land at the distance of one kilometer from acquired land sale at Rs.3/- per square meter. Here also, gap was of 18 months, thus 14.5% increase was allowed, which made sale price at Rs.3.82 per square meter. Collector then averaged two rates derived from two sale deeds and determined Rs.18/- per square meter (Rs.32.24 + Rs.3.82/2). This method adopted by Collector was not approved by Supreme Court. It was held, where there are more than one exemplar, which could be considered for determining market value, the one providing higher rate should be accepted and followed. It is only in exceptional cases where there are several sales of similar land, whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average can be taken as representing market value. But where values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar land or that lower value sale is on account of under valuation or other price depressing reasons. In respect of orchard land, therefore, Court followed exemplar sale deed dated 30.8.1989 providing sale price at Rs.43.80 per square meter and applying appreciation of 14.5% and odd per annum, Court determined market value at Rs.57.50 and to that extent claim of appellant Anjani Molu Dessai was upheld. Here also proposition laid down by Apex Court is not exceptional but depends on the facts of individual cases.
65. In Nelson Fernandes and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, AIR 2007 SC 1414, land was acquired for new broad gauge line of Konkan Railway. Acquisition notification under Section 4 Act, 1894 was issued in August, 1994. SLAO made award of Rs.4/- per square meter. In reference, District and Sessions Judge relying on two sale deeds dated 13.12.1993 enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.192/- per square meter. Sale price in exemplar sale deed was Rs.449/- per square meter. Land owners as well as acquiring body both preferred appeals. Land owner's appeal was rejected while acquiring body's appeal was allowed to the extent that market value was reduced to Rs.38/- per square meter. Supreme Court found that compensation awarded by High Court by rejecting valuer report is not based on cogent material and not supported by cogent reasons. The injury, which land owner, was likely to sustain due to loss of his future earning from selling land as also damage already suffered due to diminution of profit of land between time of publication of notice and time taken by Collector in possession was not considered. Since land was acquired for the purposes of laying down railway line, no development was to be done. There existed civil amenities like, school, police station, water supply, bank, electricity, highway, transport, petrol pump, industries, telecommunication and other business. Hence it determined compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square meter, but then applied 20% deduction, which brings rate at Rs.200/- per square meter.
66. In Special Land Acquisition Office v. Karigowdo and others, 2010 (5) SCC 708, total acquired land was 146 acres and 7 guntas. It was owned by 419 Claimants owners, whose area vary from 2 to 48 guntas. Acquired land was situated in village Sanaba, Chinakavali Hobli, Pandavapura. These land got submerged in 1993 under backwaters of Tonnur tank due to construction of Hemavathi Dam. Physical possession of land was taken between October, 1996 to December, 1999, while acquisition notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 was issued on 4.4.2002. Crops standing on land were damaged. SLAO determined market value at Rs.90,460/- per acre for wet land and Rs.37,200/- petitioner acre for dry land. On reference, compensation was enhanced to Rs.2,92,500/- per acre for wet land (garden land), Rs.1,46,250/- for dry land (lightly irrigated) and Rs.1,20,000/- for dry land (without mulberry crop). In appeal by land owners, High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for wet/garden land and Rs.2,53,750/- per acre for dry land. State, therefore, came in appeal before Apex Court. Dispute arose before Court was for computation of compensation payable to Claimants and quantum thereof. Argument advanced by State was that method adopted by Reference Court as well as High Court was impermissible in law. Court cannot take into consideration commercial activity, which may result from, and be indirectly incidental to agricultural activity, particularly, when both of them are carried on independent of each other.
67. In that case there were no sale instances from village Sanaba prior to 2002. The exemplars of adjoining villages were produced before Court. After looking into statutory provisions of Act, 1894, Court said (1) provision of Section 23 are mandatory; and (2) it is for Claimants to ascertain as a matter of fact - location, potential and quality of land for establishing its fair market value. It is for Claimant to show that what is contemplated under conditions attached thereto has been satisfied. It is also for Claimant to show that to award compensation payable under statutory provisions, they have brought on record evidence to satisfy criterion and conditions required to be fulfilled for such a claim. Court has to determine compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of Act, 1894. Potentiality of land should be on the date of acquisition i.e. existing potentiality. Further, potentiality has to be directly relatable to capacity of acquired land to produce agricultural products, or its market value relatable to method of compensation. If there is any existing crops or trees or fruit bearing trees, the same can be taken into consideration, but extent of benefit cannot go to the extent that fruits grown in agricultural land would be converted into jam or any other eatable products. This extension of loss of benefits amounts to remote factors, which is not permitted to take into consideration. The Court thus held that compensation determined by Reference Court and High Court was not justified. State appeal was partly allowed and Court provided for compensation at Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for wet/garden land and Rs.1,53,400/- per acre for dry land.
68. In Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2014) 8 SCC 897, by notification dated 2.12.1982, 327.52 acres in village Patti Jhambra, Shahabad in District Kurushetra (State of Haryana) was acquired for development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, industrial purposes etc. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 4.7.1984 in relation to 178.62 acres, and ultimate possession taken was found only 90.07 acres. Collector made award at different rates per acre depending upon quality of soil/land. Reference Court awarded uniform compensation at Rs.2,66,400/- per acre. Stated preferred appeal whereupon High Court reduced compensation to Rs.1,83,080/- per acre. Land owner preferred intra court appeal and Division Bench determined market value at Rs.2,19,696/- per acre. Land owners further went in appeal before Supreme Court, which set aside the judgment of High Court and restored award passed by Reference Court determining Rs.2,66,400/- per acre as market value. While restoring award of Reference Court, Supreme Court observed that 40% deduction applied by High Court was not justified. Since land was within developed Municipal limit, therefore, deduction of 25% applied by Reference Court was justified.
69. In Union of India v. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (deal) through legal representatives and others, (2014) 10 SCC 422, 72.9375 acres of land in village Bir Kheri Gujran, District Patiala in State of Punjab was acquired vide notification dated 14.3.1989. Collector made award of Rs.Two Lacs per acre. Reference Court enhanced amount of compensation to Rs.9,05,000/- per acre. In appeal, Single Judge of High Court reduced compensation to Rs.105.80 per square yard and it was confirmed by Division Bench also. Union of India preferred appeal, which was dismissed. Court held that there is no rule of thumb for deduction at a particular rate. It varies and depends on individual case. In para 11 Court said "the extent of cut depends on individual fact situation.
70. Deduction for development is different than deduction permissible in respect of largeness of area vis-a-vis exemplar of small piece of land. Many times, land owners relied on the rates on which development authorities used to offer allotment of developed plots carved out by them in residential or industrial area. Such rates apparently cannot form basis for compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for reasons more than one. The market value in respect of large tract of undeveloped agricultural land in a rural area has to be determined in the context of a land similarly situated whereas allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots and in a developed lay out falling within urban or semi-urban area. Statutory authorities including development authorities used to offer rates with reference to economic capacity of buyers like economic Weaker Sections, Low Income Group, Middle Income Group, Higher Income Group etc. Therefore, rates determined by such authorities are not uniform. The market value of acquired land cannot depend upon economic status of land loser and conversely on the economic status of the body at whose instance, land is acquired. Further, normally, land acquired is a freehold land whereas allotment rates determined by development authorities etc. constitute initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis.
71. However, where an exemplar of small piece of land is relied, in absence of any other relevant material, Court may determine market value in the light of evidence relating to sale price of small developed plots. In such cases, deduction varying from 20% to 75% is liable to apply depending upon nature of development of lay out in which exemplar plot is situated.
72. In Shaji Kuriakose and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, (2001) 7 SCC 650, a large tract of land in village Manakunnam, District Cochin was proposed to be acquired for setting up a bottling plant by Indian Oil Corporation and notification under Section 4 (1) was issued on 23.08.1990. Acquired land included 7.13 acres of land of Claimant/Land Owner-Shaji Kuriakose. Collector vide award dated 05.05.1992 offered compensation at Rs. 1,225/- per acre i.e. Rs. 500 per cent which was enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per cent by Reference Court. High Court reduced compensation to Rs.4,000/- per cent for wet land and Rs.6,500/- for dry land. Appeal preferred by Claimants before Apex Court failed. Court found that land which was sold vide exemplar sale deed was not similarly placed with acquired land inasmuch as there was no access to acquired land, there existed only an internal mud road which belonged to one of the Claimants, whose land was acquired, the land covered by exemplar sale deed was a dry land, whereas acquired land was mostly wet land. After acquisition, acquired land has to be reclaimed and a lot of amount would be spent for filling it. The exemplar sale deed related to a small piece of land while acquired land was quite large. Sale for smaller plot fetches more consideration than larger or bigger piece of land. Looking to all these facts, Court found that determination made by High Court was justified and dismissed appeal.
73. In Kasturi and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, 84.31 acres of land in State of Haryana was proposed to acquire for development of residential and commercial area at Sector 13 and 23 Bhiwani by publishing notification under Section 4 on 04.04.1986. Collector made award dated 10.11.1987 and 31.03.1988 determining compensation at Rs.57,500/- per acre and Rs.55,200/- per acre which comes to around Rs. 11.81 per square yard. Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs.125/- per square yard. Landowners as well as State, both preferred appeal in High Court. Landowners sought compensation at Rs.500/- per square yard while State appealed for restoration of Collector's award. High Court reduced compensation to Rs.79.98 per square yard applying 20% deduction towards development charges. It partly allowed appeal of State but dismissed appeals preferred by Claimants/Land Owners. Division Bench confirmed judgment of Single Judge hence matter was taken to Apex Court by Claimants/ Land Owners. It was contended that High Court erred in applying deduction of 20% towards development charges and also by not enhancing compensation to Rs.500/- per square yard as claimed by landowners. Supreme Court found that land acquired comprised a large area and was not developed though has potential for residential and commercial purposes. For its development roads were to be laid, provision for drainage was to be made and certain area was to be earmarked for other civic amenities. The acquired land is not a small plot located in such a way that no other development was required at all and it could be utilized as it is, being a developed building site. In respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 33% amount was processed for deduction subject to variations depending upon nature of land, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop land so as to make plots for residential or commercial purposes. Whether land is plain or uneven, soil of land is soft or hard having bearing on foundation for the purpose of making construction; whether land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around or may have a hillock or may be low lying or may be having deep ditches, are all relevant considerations since that would have consequences in the land to be spent for development. Court relied on various decisions and thereafter upheld deduction of 20% towards development and dismissed appeal of landowners.
74. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (supra), Court noticed that deduction for development constitutes two components- one is with reference to area required to be utilized for development work and second is the cost of development work. It further held that deduction for development in respect of residential plot may be higher while not so where it is an industrial plot. Similarly, if acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area or in any undeveloped rural area, then deduction for development may be much less and vary from 25 to 40 percent since some basic infrastructure will already be available. The percentage is only indicative and vary depending upon relevant factors. With reference to exemplars of transfer of land between private parties, Court would also look into intrinsic evidence, i.e., the exemplar sale deed where it recites financial difficulties of vendor and urgent need to find money as a reason for sale or other similar factors, like litigation or existence of some other dispute. These are all the factors constituting intrinsic evidence of a distress sale.
75. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (supra), Court also observed, if acquisition is in regard to a large area of agricultural land in a village and exemplar sale deed is also in respect of an agricultural land in the same village, it may be possible to rely upon the sale deed as prima facie evidence of prevailing market value even if such land is at the other end of village, at a distance of one or two kilometers. But, the same may not be appropriate where acquisition relates to plots in a town or city where every locality or road has a different value. A distance of about a kilometer may not make a difference for the purpose of market value in a rural area but even a distance of 50 meters may make a huge difference in market value in urban properties. Thus, distance between two properties, the nature and situation of property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining market value.
76. In Valliyammal & others Vs. Special Land Acquisition, 2011 (8) JT 442, Court has looked into various earlier judgments laying down guiding principles for determination of market value of acquired land. Court has observed that comparable sales method of valuation is preferred since it furnishes evidence for determination of market value of acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for acquired land if it had been sold in open market at the time of acquisition. However, this method is not always conclusive and there are certain factors, which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors, compensation can be determined. Such factors are (a) sale must be a genuine transaction; (b) sale deed must have been executed at the time, proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4; (c) land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of acquired land; (d) land covered by the sales must be similar to acquired land; and (e) size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape and size or nature of land, court can proportionately reduce compensation depending upon disadvantages attached with the acquired land. Further, for determining market value, potentiality of acquired land should also be taken into consideration. The "potentiality" means, capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when let out in its most advantageous manner. Court also said, when undeveloped or underdeveloped land is acquired and the exemplar is in respect to developed land, detection towards deduction can be made. Normally, such deduction is 1/3, but it is not a hard and fast rule.
77. In Bhule Ram v. Union of India and another, JT 2014 (5) SC 110, Court in para 7 has observed that valuation of immovable property is not an exact science, nor it can be determined like algebraic problem, as it bounds in uncertainties and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down for arriving at exact market value of the land. There is always a room for conjecture, and thus court must act reluctantly to venture too far in this direction. The factors such as the nature and position of land to be acquired, adaptability and advantages, the purpose for which the land can be used in the most lucrative way, injurious affect resulting in damages to other properties, its potential value, the locality, situation and size and shape of the land, the rise of depression in the value of the land in the locality consequent to the acquisition etc., are relevant factors to be considered. It further said that value, which has to be assessed, is the value to the owner, who parts with his property, and not the value to the new owner, who takes it over. Fair and reasonable compensation means the price of a willing buyer, which is to be paid to the willing seller. Though the Act does not provide for "just terms" or "just compensation", but market value is to be assessed taking into consideration the use to which it is being put on acquisition and whether the land has unusual or unique features or potentialities. Court then also considered as to what is the concept of "guess work" and observed that it is not unknown to various fields of law as it applies in the cases relating to insurance, taxation, compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act as well as under Labour Laws. Having said so, Court further said: -
"The court has a discretion applying the guess work to the facts of the given case but is is not unfettered and has to be reasonable having connection to the facts on record adduced by the parties by way of evidence. The court further held as under: -
"'Guess' as understood in its common parlance is an estimate without any specific information while "calculations" are always made with reference to specific data. "Guesstimate" is an estimate based on a mixture of guesswork and calculations and it is a process in itself. At the same time "guess" cannot be treated synonymous to "conjecture". "Guess" by itself may be a statement or result based on unknown factors while "conjecture" is made with a very slight amount of knowledge, which is just sufficient to incline the scale of probability. "Guesstimate" is with higher certainty than more "guess" or a "conjecture" per se." (para 8)
78. In Bhupal Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2015) 5 SCC 801 while the above principles laid down in various cases were reiterated, Court in para 18 of judgment, said: -
"Law on the question as to how the court is required to determined the fair market value of the acquired land is fairly well settled by several decisions of this Court and remains no more res integra. This Court has, inter alia, held that when the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped land having potential and was acquired for residential purpose then while determining the fair market value of the lands on the date of acquisition, the appropriate deductions are also required to be made."
79. It is also reaffirmed that an exemplar when relates to small piece of developed land and is sought to be relied to determine market value of large tract of undeveloped acquired land, deduction can be applied ranging between 20% to 75%. The Court in para 20 of judgment relied upon its decision in Chandrashekhar Vs. L.A. Officer, (2012) 1 SCC 390 stating that deduction has two components, one is "development" and another with respect to the "size of the area". Percentage of deduction was restricted in Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444 stating that deduction of both components should be around 1/3 each in its entirety, which would roughly come to 67% of component of sale consideration of exemplar sale transaction.
80. Thus, with respect to escalation of price where exemplar is much earlier in point of time, Court in K. Devakimma and others v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and another, 2015 (111) ALR 241 said that recourse can be taken in appropriate cases to the mode of determining market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby land in previous years where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transaction or acquisition of comparable lands in neighbourhood. The percentage of escalation may vary from case to case so also the extent of years to determine the rates.
81. In Chandrashekhar Versus Land Acquisition Officer (supra) for residential layout issued by Gulbarga Development Authority acquisition proceedings were initiated by publishing Notification dated 13.5.1982 proposing to acquire 144 acres of land in villages Rajapur (71 acres) and Badepur (73 acres). The land of Claimants-appellants measured 8 acres, 4 guntas in village Badepur and in connected appeal it measured 7 acres, 7 guntas. Collector made award determining compensation at Rs.4100/- per acre for land in village Badepur and Rs.13,500/- for land in village Rajapur. Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs.1,46,000/- per acre in place of Rs.4100/- per acre for land in village Badepur. On appeal, High Court remanded matter, whereafter Reference Court determined compensation at Rs.1,45,000/- per acre vide order dated 21.12.2002. High Court reduced compensation in appeal at Rs. 65,000/-. The view taken by High Court was upheld by Supreme Court by dismissing appeal of landowners. The issue raised before Court was the extent of deduction to be applied while determining market.
82. It would be interesting to notice review of various cases by Supreme Court demonstrating that deduction applied has varied in all cases.
(a) In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419, the Court said where a large area of undeveloped land is acquired, provision has to be made for providing minimum amenities of town-life. Accordingly, deduction of 20 percent of total acquired land should be made for land over which infrastructure has to be made (space for roads etc.). Besides, cause of raising infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, underground drainage, etc. is also to be considered and for this purposes deduction would raise from 20% to 33%. Thus, in all the Court upheld deductions between 40% and 53%.
(b) In Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150, the Court upheld deduction of 40%.
(c) In Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another (supra), the Court upheld deduction between 20% to 50%.
(d) In Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chottor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385, Court upheld deduction of 40% as development cost.
(e) In Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana (supra), 1/3rd deduction was upheld on development, clarifying that deduction can be more or less of 1/3rd depending upon facts of the case.
(f) In Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others, (2003) 12 SCC 334, Court upheld 53% deduction.
(g) In V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) Versus Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, Court upheld 37% deduction towards development.
(h) In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, Court observed that deduction of 20 to 50% towards development is permissible.
(i) In Atma Singh Versus State of Haryana and another, (2008)2 SCC 568, 20% deduction towards largeness of area was applied.
(j) In Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (supra), Court observed that where valuation of a large area of agricultural or undeveloped land has to be determined on the basis of sale price of a small developed plot, standard deductions would be 1/3rd towards infrastructural space and 1/3 towards infrastructural developmental cost, i.e. 2/3rd % i.e. 67%.
(k) In Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Versus K. Manohar Reddy and others, (2010) 12 SCC 707, it was observed that deductions on account of development could vary between 20% to 75%.
(l) In Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Versus M.K. Rafiq Sahib, (2011) 7 SCC 714, Court was upheld 60% deduction.
83. In this background of authorities, Court in Chandrashekhar Versus Land Acquisition Officer (supra), observed that quantum of deduction towards development is on account of two components. In this regard it said in para 19.1 and 19.2 as under :
" 19.1. Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, for providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads and adjoining pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water and effluent treatment plants, electricity sub-stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication towers etc. Besides the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds. Additionally, development includes provision of civic amenities like educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This "first component", may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside area/space for providing developmental infrastructure.
19.2 Secondly, deduction has to be made for the expenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic amenities referred to above, including costs for levelling hillocks and filling up low lying lands and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and the like. This "second component" may conveniently be referred to as deductions for developmental expenditure /expense."
84. Having said so Court in para 23 said:-
"23. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the analysis of the legal position referred to in the foregoing two paragraphs, we are of the view that there is no discrepancy on the issue, in the recent judgments of this Court. In our view, for the "first component" under the head of "development", deduction of 33-1/3 percent can be made. Likewise, for the "second component" under the head of "development" a further deduction of 33-1/3 percent can additionally be made. The facts and circumstances of each case would determine the actual component of deduction, for each of the two components. Yet under the head of "development", the applied deduction should not exceed 67 percent. That should be treated as the upper benchmark. This would mean, that even if deduction under one or the other of the two components exceeds 33-1/3 percent, the two components under the head of "development" put together, should not exceed the upper benchmark."
85. The above principles have further been followed and reiterated in Atma Singh Versus State of Haryana and another (supra), Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 160 and Major General Kapil Mehra and others Vs. Union Of India and another (supra).
86. The decisions of this Court in National Thermal Power Corporation through its G.M. Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (4) ADJ 537 (All.) and Power Grid Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (5) ADJ 138(All.) also reiterate the said principles.
87. In Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (d) by LRS and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others (2012) 7 SCC 595 Reference Court while determining market value observed that though land was agricultural but had non-agricultural potential and determined market value. High Court made a deduction of 15% towards development charges.
88. Referring to an earlier decision in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujrat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, Court in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra) said that development charges may range between 20% to 50% of the total price. Court further observed:
"in fixing market value of the acquired land which is undeveloped and under-developed the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired." (emphasis added)
89. Recently above authorities and several others have been considered in Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of India and another (supra), and Court has observed that while fixing market value of acquired land, Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:-
(i) Existing geographical situation of land.
(ii) Existing use of land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/ or developed area,
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
90. Court has further said that market value is determined with reference to the market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood by a willing seller to a willing buyer on or before the date of preliminary notification i.e. under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, as that would give a fair indication of market value.
91. With respect to factors of comparable sales, Court in Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of India and another (supra) has referred to its earlier decision in Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others Versus K.S. Gangadharappa and another, (2009) 11 SCC 164, and has observed that element of speculation is reduced to minimum if underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are satisfied, i.e.,(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii)) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) It should possess similar advantages.
92. Where there are several exemplars showing different rates, it has been said that averaging is not permissible, if land acquired are of different types and different locations. But where there are several sales of similar land, more or less, at the same time, prices whereof have marginal variation, averaging thereof is permissible. It is further held that for the purpose of fixation of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally highvalue or abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded. If number of sale deeds of the same locality and of same period with short intervals are available, average price of available number of sale deeds shall be considered as a fair and reasonable market price. Ultimately, it is in the interest of justice for land losers to be awarded fair compensation. All attempts should be taken to award fair compensation to the extent possible on the basis of their accessibility to different kinds of roads, locational advantages etc.
93. ''Freehold land' and ''leasehold land', both these terms are conceptually different. If a property, subject to lease and in possession of a lessee, is offered for sale by owner to a prospective private purchaser, the purchaser being aware that on purchase he will get only title and not possession and that the sale in his favour will be subject to encumbrance namely, the lease, he will offer a price taking note of the encumbrances. Naturally, such a price would be less than the price of a property without any encumbrance. But when a land is acquired free from encumbrances, market value of the same will certainly be higher.
94. In Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (supra), Court also considered deductions towards competitive bidding and development. In paragraph no. 39, Court said :
"We have referred to various decisions of this Court on deduction towards development to stress upon the point that deduction towards development depends upon the nature and location of the acquired land. The deduction includes components of land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewage, electricity, parks and other common facilities and also deduction towards development charges like laying of roads, construction of sewerage."
95. Thus, having gone through all the aforesaid decisions, we find that no absolute principle or Rule of Thumb has been laid down in any of the authorities as to how much deduction should be made. The substance of all the decisions is that deduction should be applied where undeveloped and under-developed land is acquired and it can vary from 10% to 70%, depending upon various factors of each case. Similarly, if area of land exemplar is very small, appropriate deduction can be made.
96. Normally, Courts have held that exemplars should be such which are before the date of notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 but an exemplar sale deed of a subsequent period of date of acquisition notification is not completely ruled out to be relevant document provided circumstances to justify the same are available.
97. In State of U.P. Vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and others, AIR 1982 SC 876, notification under Section 4 was published on 6.1.1948. Court determined rate of compensation relying on a sale deed dated 11.7.1959, i.e., a document executed after almost three and half years after the date of acquisition notification. Court upheld reliance of such document observing, if there is no material to show that there was any fluctuation in market rate between the date of acquisition and the date of concerned sale deed, such document may be considered as a relevant material in absence of any other apt evidence. This view was followed in a subsequent decision, i.e., Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1998 SC 943, where it is held:
"Such subsequent transactions which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purposes of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value."
98. In certain cases, where nature, extent, size, surrounding and location of the acquired land greatly varies, Courts have applied belting system for determination of market rate of acquired land. It is applied in appropriate cases when different parcels of lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations are acquired. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact block. In Bijender and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (2018) 11 SCC 180, Court in para 34 of judgment said:
"The acquired land comprises of more than around 300 acres or so and is thus a very large in chunk. The acquired land belonged to several landowners and obviously so being so large in volume. One side of the acquired land is abutting the road. The land has surrounding with some kind of activities in nearby areas and this shows that the acquired land has some potential."
99. In Belting System, acquired land is usually divided in two or three belts depending upon the facts of each case. Appreciating this aspect in para 35 of judgment in Bijender and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra), Court said:
"The market value of the front belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch maximum value whereas the second belt fetches two third or so of the rate determined in relation to the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum. It is again depending upon facts of each case."
100. In para 49 of judgment, Court further said:
"49. It is also held that the value of the smaller plots, which is always on the higher side, is usually not taken into consideration for determining the large block of the land. One of the reasons being that the substantial area of the large block is used for development of sites like laying out the roads, drains sewers, water and electricity lines and several civic amenities and to provide these facilities, lot of time is consumed. The deduction is, therefore, made, which ranges from 20% to 50% or in appropriate cases even more."
101. In Trishala Jain and another Vs. State of Uttranchal and another, (2011) 6 SCC 47, for the purposes of construction of Government Polytechnic Institute at Dehradun, notification under Section 4 was published on 30th January, 1992, proposing to acquire 12.85 acres of land situated in village Sewala Kalan, Pargana Kendriya Doon, District Dehradun. The area of land belong to Claimants-Land Owner, Trishala Jain and others, was 4.58 acres and 3.031 acres respectively. Collector offered compensation applying "belting system" and the first belt at Rs.9,78,223.40 per acre, second belt at Rs. 6,52,482.27 per acre and third belt at Rs. 4,39,362.70 per acre. Reference Court held belting system applied by Collector improper observing that entire land having been acquired for one purpose, there was no justification for application of belting system. Relying on two exemplar sale deeds dated 26.11.1991 and 17.11.1991 it awarded compensation at Rs. 5,12,000/- per bigha after applying 20% deduction to gross market value of Rs.6,40,000/- per bigha. In appeal, High Court upheld view taken by Reference Court that there was no justification for applying "belting system" but raised deduction from 20% to 33.33% and hence determined market value at Rs. 4,26,667/- per bigha. The aforesaid deduction was applied on account of "development charges". Appeal was taken to Supreme Court by Claimants/Land Owners. The four questions formulated by Court are as under:
"I. Whether or not the belting system ought to have been applied for determination of fair market value of the acquired land?
II. What should be the just and fair market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section of the Act?
III. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case there ought to be any deduction after determining the fair market value of the land?
IV. What compensation and benefits are the claimants entitled to?"
102. Court upheld the view taken by courts below that application of "belting system" was unjustified since land as a whole was similarly placed and surrounded by developed areas and proposed to be used for one purpose, i.e., construction of Government Polytechnic Institute. Court then also held that deduction towards development is justified in certain circumstances but how much deduction is to be applied, will depend upon individual facts of the case. In para 39 of judgment, Court said:
"39. The law with regard to applying the principle of deduction to the determined market value of the acquired land is quite consistent, though, of course, the extent of deduction has varied very widely depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In other words, it is not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made uniformly applicable to all the cases. Normally the rule stated by this Court consistently, in its different judgments, is that deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects. It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land." (emphasis added)
103. Further in paras 41 and 44 of judgment, Court said:
"41. The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of `no deduction'. Furthermore, where the evidence led by the parties is of such instances where the compensation paid is comparable, i.e. exemplar lands have all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases where principle of `no deduction' may be applied. These may be the cases where least or no deduction could be made. Such cases are exceptional and/or rare as normally the lands which are proposed to be acquired for development purposes would be agricultural lands and/or semi or haphazardly developed lands at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is the relevant time to be taken into consideration for all purposes and intents for determining the market value of the land in question."
"44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits." (emphasis added)
104. In Union of India and others Vs. Mangatu Ram (1997) 6 SCC 59, a Three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court considered the question as to when belting system should be applied and held that when a large extent of land under acquisition comprises of lands of several persons and some lands are abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would not have the uniform rate of market value. Reasonable demarcation/classification should be made before determination of the compensation. Upholding the belting system to be applied in that case, Court said that lands situated around 500 yards from the main road should be classified as 'A' class land irrespective of the quality of the land an uniform rate of compensation should be applied to the same and remaining should be placed in category 'B' and applied another but lesser rate. Therein an argument was made that if different rates are applied, it will violate fundamental right of equality enshrined under Article 14. Rejecting it, Court said:
"It is equally settled law that Article 14 has no application vis-a-vis determination of the compensation for the obvious reason that it is hardly possible that all the lands are equal in all respects; they differ from one another and bear different features, e.g., nature, quality and character; therefore, all the lands do not command the same market value when they are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market."
105. Court further held:
" ... the doctrine of equality in the matter of payment of compensation under Article 14 is inapplicable."
106. The market value determined by Reference Court in the case in hand is thus has to be examined in the light of aforesaid facts and exposition of law.
107. The topography of entire acquired land is demonstrated in the status plan/map (unscaled), which is Exhibit 12(Paper No. 31 Ga). It shows shape of acquired land as a rectangular bottle having neck abutting G.T. Road i.e. Meerut-Muzaffar Nagar Road and substantial part is on east side inside from G.T Road. The extreme eastern part of acquired land falls in village Samauli Salempur but substantial part comes in village Mataur. Exhibit 12 (map) shows that on east-northern side of G.T. Road, abutting acquired land, there is abadi of village Mataur while on east-southern side there existed a Primary Health Center. On the opposite side of acquired land, across G.T. Road, there is abadi of village Mataur and also store and other constructions of VSNL. Adjacent to VSNL there is a School, Oriental Bank and Police Station Daurala. The entire area on both sides is occupied with abadi or different kinds of commercial, industrial or other public related institutions. Frontage of acquired land abutting G.T. Road is only around 100 meters and thereafter it goes about 1100-1200 meters inside i.e. eastern side of G.T. Road. Village Mataur is on front side towards G.T. Road, while village Samauli Salempur is on the backside.
108. On behalf of PGCIL, an affidavit has been filed appending therewith a chart giving distance from G.T. Road of the individual owners of land which has been acquired and it shows a distance from G.T. Road varying from 40 meter to 1168 meter.
109. Learned counsel appearing for Claimant-Land Owners admitted that at the time of acquisition when Notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 was published, entire acquired land was being used for agricultural purposes.
110. PW-1-Jagpal Singh has stated that near acquired land there existed Daraula Sugar Works run by D.C.M. Group, Distillery of DCM, Sugar and Tube Chemical Plants, a Power Station setup by DCM for running its factories. This Power Station used to supply electricity to Sugar Factory and Workers' Colony of DCM. 60% sugar factory is in village Mataur and 40% in village Daurala. Abutting acquired land is National Highway Delhi-Dehradoon. On western side of National Highway, there is a railway line. There is a Veterinary Hospital opposite Primary Health Center, just in the vicinity of acquired land. Adjacent to Veterinary Hospital there is Oriental Bank of Commerce. All these buildings are in village Mataur. There also exist State Bank, Petrol Pump, Cold Storage etc.
111. From Exhibit-12, we find that Daurala Sugar Factory is on the west side across G.T. Road/ National Highway and it is at some distance from acquired land but adjacent to abadi of village Mataur. Land however is part of village Mataur.
112. It appears that village Mataur is a big village and there existed a number of commercial, industrial and other institutions/establishments and abadi showing that village was sufficiently developed and lots of business and industrial activities were going on thereat, when acquisition commenced.
113. These developmental activities have been deposed by all the four witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-4 and is supported by Exhibit-12 (Map). Our attention is not drawn to any material or evidence on record, adduced by appellants-PGCIL to contradict the aforesaid facts. Thus it can safely be held that acquired land lie in a developed area and has great potential for various purposes.
114. Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Advocate for appellants could not dispute that exemplar relied by PGCIL was found suspicious and dubious hence rejected by Reference Court. Findings of Reference Court in this regard have not been challenged before us and nothing has been shown so as to persuade us to take a different view than what has been taken by Reference Court for rejection of sale deed dated 26.5.1995 which was relied by PGCIL-appellants. So there remains no exemplar cited by PGCIL, valid for consideration for determining market value.
115. The Claimant-Land Owners cited sale deeds dated 25.4.1994 (Exhibit-1), 24.5.1994 (Exhibit-2), 24.5.1994 (Exhibit-3), 29.3.1994 (Exhibit-4), 23.5.1995 (Exhibit-5), 28.4.1994 (Exhibit-6), 16.8.1994 (Exhibit-7), 13.7.1994 (Exhibit-8), 17.11.1993 (Exhibit-9), 17.12.1997 (Exhibit-10) and 9.11.1993 (Exhibit-11).
116. The defendant-appellant has also referred to sale deeds dated 25.4.1994 (Paper No. 4), 1.5.1998 (Paper No. 5), 16.8.1994 (Paper No.6) and 11.3.1996 (Paper No. 7) in support of plea that Reference Court has wrongly determined higher rate of compensation.
117. Paper No. 15Ga is a sale-deed dated 24.05.1994 executed by Smt. Usha in favour of DCM Shree Ram Industries Limited. A total 2.31 acres of land, i.e., 3 bigha 14 biswa 1.5 biswansi (11204.44 square yards) of land in Village Mataur was sold at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yard, i.e., about Rs. 148/- per square meter. Admittedly land was transferred for commercial purposes to M/s DCM Shree Ram Industries Limited and sale deed was executed pursuant to agreement to sell dated 30.03.1993. At the time of entering into agreement to sell, rate agreed between parties was Rs. 135/- per square yard (about Rs. 148/- per square meter). The above agreement was executed about 1 year and 11 months and sale-deed was executed about ten months, earlier to the date of commencement of acquisition proceedings in the present case. To the same effect is Paper No. 16Ga, which is also a sale-deed dated 24.05.1994 executed by Smt. Sushma in favour of DCM Shree Ram Industries Limited.
118. The next is Paper No. 17Ga executed on 23.04.1994 by Jasveer Singh and Ashok Kumar in favour of Smt. Chiraunji, wife of Jaipal Singh transferring a small piece of land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square meter. The land is situated in village Samauli Salempur, but details of land are not given in the sale-deed.
119. Paper No. 18Ga is a sale-deed dated 29.03.1994 executed by one Ompal Singh in favour of Sukhbeer Singh transferring a small piece of land of about about 301 square meter in Village Mataur at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square meter. Sale-deed shows that the land was in the shape of plot and in the vicinity thereof, already plotting was mad.
120. Paper No. 19Ga is a sale-deed dated 25.05.1994 executed by Smt. Santosh Giri in favour of Smt. Babita transferring a plot measuring 198 square yard (165.55 square meter) at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square meter. The aforesaid land is in Village Mataur.
121. Paper No. 22Ga is a sale-deed dated 28.04.1994 executed by Ram Chandra Singh in favour of Smt. Kusum Bala transferring 36.088 square meter of land in Village Mataur at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square meter.
122. Paper No. 23Ga is a sale-deed dated 16.08.1994 executed by Smt. Kripa Devi in favour of Smt. Bhopal Singh and Surendra Singh transferring 125 square meter of land in Village Mataur at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square meter.
123. Paper No. 24Ga is a sale-deed dated 13.07.1994 executed in favour of Sri Bhule Ram, Sripal and Madan transferring by sale a plot measuring 83.61 square meter in Village Mataur.
124. Paper No. 25Ga is a much earlier executed sale-deed dated 17.11.1993 by Smt. Asha Chauhan in favour of DCM Shree Ram Industries Limited transferring by sale, 45.375 square yard of land in Khasra No. 480M, in Village Mataur, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square yard. Similarly, Paper No. 26C is a sale-deed dated 07.12.1993 executed by Smt. Usha Chauhan in favour of DCM Shree Ram Industries Limited transferring 45.375 square yards (Khasra No. 480M) in Village Mataur at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square yard. A similar sale-deed (Paper No. 27Ga) was executed by Smt. Rameshwar, Sharad Kashyap, Smt. Usha Chauhan and Smt. Sushma Tomar in favour of DCM Shree Ram Industries Limited transferring by sale 181.5 square yards in Khasra No. 480M at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square yard.
125. These documents show that besides development already existing in the vicinity of acquired land, there existed a situation where even land used for agricultural purposes was being transferred/sold by way of small plots and rates in 1993 for such small piece of land was around Rs. 200/- per square meter which got increased to Rs. 300/- per square meter in 1994. It has not been brought to our notice by placing any material that these documents are dubious or doubtful for any reason whatsoever and/or the rates disclosed are inflated or otherwise these documents are unreliable.
126. We also find that here is a case where 70.7562 hectors of land (707562 square meters) was acquired. This land fell into two villages, i.e., Mataur and Samauli Salempur. Major part of acquired land was in village Mataur, i.e., 55.1754 hectors (551754 square meters) and smaller part in village Samauli Salempur i.e. 15.5840 hectors (155840 sq. meter). The shape of the acquired land is like a rectangle bottle having neck abutting G.T. Road. About 100 meters land is towards G.T. Road and remaining land goes in depth to the extent of more than 1100 meters, i.e., more than 1.1 km. Village Mataur is situated towards G.T. Road while village Samauli Salempur is on the back side meaning thereby the land of village Samauli Salempur is deepest from G.T. Road.
127. Though substantial arguments have been advanced that SLAO has taken cognizance of subsequent sale deeds showing a much lesser rate and therefore, market value determined by Reference Court at Rs. 131/- is highly excessive but we do not find any material on record to find out location and other circumstances in which such transactions were carried on. Therefore, we find it difficult to rely on or refer to such documents particularly when such documents were not cited and proved before Reference Court. SLAO in its award has relied on a sale deed which was at serial No. 95 and executed on 26.05.1995. This was cited before Reference Court also. It was executed by Richpal Singh in favour of Smt. Revati and Smt. Dayawati transferring 0.6934 hectors (6934 square meter) of khasra No. 1203 at the rate of Rs. 1,31,868.32 per hector. SLAO has also found this document consistent with circle rate and also Board of Revenue's Circular dated 12.05.1995. SLAO, therefore, relied on it treating it appropriate exemplar for determining market value. It is evident from the SLAO's award that there was a lot of litigation in respect of the aforesaid land. Moreover, owner was in dire need of money and there was a family dispute also, therefore, the aforesaid sale was ex facie a distress sale and such a document could not have been treated to be a valid exemplar for determining market value. This exemplar therefore has rightly been discarded by Reference Court.
128. Even otherwise, it is a well settled law that proceedings before SLAO are not relevant when a Reference is to be answered by a Court under Section 18 of Act, 1894. Such Reference is like a suit. Award made by Collector/SLAO determining market value of a land which has been acquired by the State forcibly under the provisions of Act, 1894 is only an offer of compensation of the acquired land made to landowners. Land Owners, if satisfied, may accept the same else they have remedy of seeking determination of market value of acquired land by an independent forum, i.e., District Judge. That is the procedure when a Reference is made under Section 18 of Act, 1894 and Reference has to be answered by District Judge concerned taking into account the principles laid down in Act, 1894 and in particular Sections 23 and 24. In view thereof proceedings before Reference Court are original proceedings and have to be treated as a suit. Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the award of SLAO. It has been held that material considered by SLAO is not to be seen by Reference Court unless such material has been relied on and proved before Reference Court.
129. Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that in a case where a sale-deed exemplar of smaller piece of land is to be applied where piece of land has been sold as a retail price in a developed area in such a case, deduction for development has to be applied and in this regard placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (supra).
130. As a proposition of law, there is no dispute but then there must be evidence on record that sale-deed exemplars relied by one of the party relating to a small piece of land refer to such land which is already a developed plot or in a developed site. In other words, in respect to certain areas development activities have already been undertaken causing increase of price substantially. In a case, when an undeveloped agricultural land is acquired, before taking recourse to price of lance, which is in an developed area as basis of market value of acquired land, it would be appropriate to apply deduction for development but in the case in hand, the Land Owners' exemplars which have been relied by them do not show that the same exists in a developed area or can be said to be developed plots. It is true that area of land transacted therein is a smaller but it is part and parcel of agricultural land and at least no evidence has come on record to show that there was already some development undertaken in the area in which such land falls.
131. The sale deed exemplars, i.e., Paper No. 20Ga to 23Ga are of the period of April, May and December, 1994. The area of land sold therein varies from 36.088 to 165.55 square meters. Rate in all these sale deed is Rs. 300/- per square meter. As per own details given by PGCIL, land which is near to G.T. Raod is Khasra No. 1253, area 0.008 hectare (80 square meter) and its distance is 40 meters from G.T. Road. Similarly, in the same khasra, there is another piece of land of Rajendra Pal Singh (First Appeal No. 195 of 2005). The area of acquired land is 0.036 hectare and distance from road is 40 meters. In First Appeal No. 98 of 2005, Khasra No. 1257 of Chote Lal, area 0.462 hectares (4620 square meters) and it is 176 meters from road. In First Appeal No. 195 of 2005 Khasra No. 1180 of Raj Pal having area of 0.022 (220 square meter) is 200 meters from road. There is sufficiently large number of land in difference khasra belong to different Land Owners which is even smaller than 165.55 square meter of land, which was subject matter of sale-deed exemplar Paper No. 21Ga. Moreover, land is situated within 500 meters from road. In other matters, where land is beyond 500 meters, there also area of land is smaller or much bigger. Therefore, outright rejection of all exemplar sale-deeds relied by Claimants-Land Owners by Reference Court was not justified.
132. It is true that in the sale-deed exemplar dated 11.03.1996, 6000 square meter land was sold to B.S.N.L. at the rate of Rs. 131/- per square meter but simultaneously there is another sale-deed (Paper No. 15Ga) whereby more than 11000 square meter land was transferred by sale and that too in 1994 at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yards (about Rs. 148/- per square meter).
133. In order to avoid micro sets of different Land Owners for the purpose of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of these appeals, we are of the view that market value of acquired land must be determined by also taking into consideration sale-deed exemplars Paper No. 20Ga and 21Ga whereby land measuring 165 and odd square meter was sold at Rs. 300/- square meter and not solely on the basis of sale deed exemplar dated 11.03.1996 whereby 6000 square meter land was sold to B.S.N.L. at the rate of Rs. 131/- per square meter.
134. In the facts and circumstances and looking the entire aspects harmoniously and also considering the fact that source of livelihood, i.e., land of farmers is being taken by State and thereby they are being deprived of earning their livelihood by cultivation and it is also not certain as to whether they will be able to rehabilitate themselves by purchasing some other agricultural land for the purpose of cultivation and also the fact that acquisition proceedings commenced in 1995 and still dispute of adequate compensation is pending for adjudication though more than 23 years have passed, we are of the view that rate determined by Reference Court at Rs. 131/- per square meter is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Simultaneously, enhancement has to be reasonable considering the fact that land is more than one kilometer in depth and the area of acquired land of different Land Owners vary to a large extent. We, therefore, apply 33 per cent deduction to the rate disclosed in sale-deed exemplar no. 20Ga which brings in market rate at Rs. 200/- per square meter. Therefore, land within 500 meters from road should be valued for compensation at the market rate of Rs. 200/- per square meter and land which is beyond 500 meters from road, we apply 50 per cent deduction to the sale-deed exemplar rate of Paper No. 20Ga and 21Ga and 10 per cent appreciation to rate of sale-deed of B.S.N.L., which will bring market value at Rs. 150/- per square meter. However, in case where area of land acquired is more than 10,000 square meters, if it is out of 500 meters from road, a further 10 per cent deduction would apply to the respective rates, i.e., if within 500 meters, and it is determined at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square meter and if it is beyond 500 meters, it will fetch compensation at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square meter.
135. In the result, market value of acquired land of Land Owners subject matter of these appeals are determined as under:
(I) The acquired land which is within 500 meters of G.T. Road will be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square meter provided area of acquired land of separate khasra numbers and land owners is upto 10,000 square meters.
(II) Where area of acquired land is more than 10,000 square meters and it is within 500 meters from G.T. Road, compensation shall be determined at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square meter.
(III) For the land beyond 500 meters from G.T. Road upto area 10,000/- square meters of different khasra no., land owners will be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square meter.
(IV) Where area of acquired land is more than 10,000 square meters and it is beyond 500 meters from G.T. Road, compensation shall be determined at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square meter.
136. In respect to other statutory compensations, like, solatium, interest etc. impugned judgments and awards of Court below are hereby affirmed, but in respect to market value, i.e., rate of compensation, impugned awards shall stand modified in the manner hereinabove.
137. In view of above, all the appeals preferred by PGCIL are dismissed and the Appeals/Cross Objections of Land Owners are partly allowed in the manner as aforesaid.
138. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt. 12.12.2018 Manish Tripathi/PS