Allahabad High Court
Naipal And Another vs Noida Thru. Chief Exe. Officer And ... on 21 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143371 Court No. - 35 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 593 of 2025 Appellant :- Naipal And Another Respondent :- Noida Thru. Chief Exe. Officer And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Mohan Chaurasisa,Shailesh Upadhyay,Shiv Shantosh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J.
InRe: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2021 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.2 of 2021
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant no.1 Nehpal son of late Khaccheru, who has died on 24.12.2006, leaving behind his son namely Mahesh, who has also expired.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the legal heirs were not aware that the legal heirs of deceased are to be substituted in the appeal, as such, they could not inform their counsel.
4. Affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which has not been opposed by the respondents.
5. The cause shown for filing the substitution application with delay is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.
6. Accordingly, the substitution application is allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
..
InRe: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.5 of 2021 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.6 of 2021
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant no.2 Sheoraj son of late Khaccheru, who has died on 27.10.2012, leaving behind his four sons namely Gyanendra, Dharamveer, Shukveer and Baleram.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Shukveer Singh son of Sheo Raj has also died on 14.06.2009 and as such, his legal heirs namely Vikas son of Shukveer and Anita wife of Shukveer be also permitted to brought on record. He further submitted that Baleram son of Sheo Raj has also died on 18.03.2019, leaving behind his legal heirs Naveen son of Baleram, Praveen son of Baleram, Gautam son of Baleram and Munni Devi wife of Baleram, as such, they be also permitted to brought on record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased were not aware about the provision of law, so that they could not inform their counsel, as such, the substitution application could not be filed earlier.
5. Affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which has not been opposed by the respondents.
6. The cause shown for filing the substitution application with delay is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.
7. Accordingly, the substitution application is allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
Order on Appeal:-
1. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shivam Yadav counsel appearing for NOIDA authority alongwith Standing Counsel for the State are present.
2. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been preferred by the claimants against the impugned award and decree dated 29.11.2003 passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in L.A.R. No.343 of 1997 (Naipal & another Vs. State of U.P. & another) whereby compensation under the Land Acquisition Act has been awarded at the rate of Rs.2,14,775/- per Bigha (Rs.71/- per square yard) alongwith other statutory benefit available under the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in First Appeal No.402 of 2012 (Tej Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others), First Appeal No.277 of 2015 (Mahesh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others), First Appeal No.289 of 2004 (Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & others), First Appeal No.531 of 2013 (Jai Ram Vs. State of U.P. & another) and First Appeal No.288 of 2004 (Mahesh & others Vs. State of U.P. & another), a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.09.2016 has enhanced the compensation from Rs.71/- per square yard to Rs.340/- per square yard and since all the appeals pertain to the land acquired in village Illabas, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, as such, the appellants are also entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.340/- per square yard alongwith, other statutory benefits under the Act.
4. He further submitted that against the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above appeals, the Noida authority has not preferred any appeal before the Apex Court, as such, the order of the Division Bench of this Court has become final.
5. Sri Shivam Yadav learned counsel for the Noida authority admitted that against the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above appeals, no appeal has been filed before the Apex Court, but he submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal (D) No.469 of 2004 (Dharmveer Singh & another Vs. Noida through Chief Exe. Officer & others) vide order dated 15.09.2016 has only awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard, as such, the appellants are only entitled to get that much compensation. He further submitted that a review application has been filed by the Noida authority in First Appeal No.402 of 2012 and in another connected four appeals which is pending for disposal, as such, the appellants be only awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is apparent that the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.402 of 2012 alongwith other connected appeals while considering the judgment and award dated 29.11.2003, passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar regarding the land acquired in village Illabas, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.340/- per square yard. It was held as under:-
"Keeping in view the principles evolved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash (dead) by LRs. & others Vs. Union of India & another, (2004) 10 SCC 627 and Ashrafi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & others, (2013) 5 SCC 527, the market value of the land of the claimant-appellants, which has been acquired vide notification dated 06.01.1992, is liable to be determined by applying 12% increase annually with cumulative/compounding effect. In case, the base year market price of village Illabas is treated to be Rs.297/- per square yard with regard to the land, which was acquired on 06.08.1988, then market value of the land of the claimant-appellants, which has been acquired at least four years after the earlier acquisition, would come to more than Rs.340/- per square yard, but the appellants have confined their claim only to Rs.340/- per square yard.
In view of the principles evolved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Om Prakash (supra) and Ashrafi & Ors. (supra) as also various Division Benches judgment of this Court, the claimant-appellants, in the cases in hand, whose land was acquired on 06.01.1992, are entitled to compensation at the market value of Rs.340/- per square yard along with all other statutory benefits admissible under the Act.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, all the first appeals of the claimant-appellants are liable to be allowed by modifying the judgment and award dated 29.11.2003 passed by reference court and the consequential decree thereof by enhancing the market value as awarded by the reference court from Rs.71/- per square yard to Rs.340/- per square yard with all other statutory benefits payable under the provisions of the Act.
The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed to the extent directed above."
8. All the above mentioned appeals relate to village Illabas and the instant appeal is also regarding the land acquired in village Ilabas. In First Appeal (D) No.469 of 2004, the compensation has been awarded on the basis that the acquired land is situated in village Mamoora. Since the judgment in First Appeal No.402 of 2012 specifically deals with the land of village Illabas, as such, in my opinion, the appellants are entitled to get the compensation at the same rate as has been awarded by the Division Bench in First Appeal No.402 of 2012. Since the order passed in First Appeal No.402 of 2012 has not been assailed before the Apex Court, as such, it cannot be said that the ratio of that case, cannot be applied, while awarding the compensation in this case.
9. This appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 23.09.2004 and for its restoration, the appellants filed an application on 29.10.2021 and finally the appeal was restored on 12.08.2025. The deficiency of Court fees was made good on 23.05.2025.
10. In view of the above, the respondent NOIDA authority cannot be saddled with payment of interest on the compensation for the period between 23.09.2004, till the date the deficiency of Court fees was made good on 23.05.2025. The appellants are not entitled to get interest on the compensation from 23.09.2004 to 23.05.2025.
11. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The appellants are entitled to get compensation for their acquired land at the rate of Rs.340/- per square yard alongwith other statutory benefits payable under the provisions of the Act. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
12. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Himanshu