Allahabad High Court
Rajpal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 9 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)AWC1471
Author: G.P. Srivastava
Bench: G.P. Srivastava
JUDGMENT G.P. Srivastava, J.
1. These are appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad on 19.2.1987 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 96 of 1983 and 14 others which were consolidated and the L.A.R. No. 96 of 1983 was made a leading case.
2. All those references arose out of the award dated 15.12.1981 given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad in respect of 39- 323 acres of land of village Mohammadpur Khuralia Pargana and Tehsil Garh, district Ghaziabad. The said land was acquired for the construction of Madhya Ganga Nahar, Nirman Khand 9, Garh, Ghaziabad. The notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was published on 28.7.1979 and notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 of the said Act was published on 15.9.1979. Possession of the land was taken on 21.11.1979. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,500 per bigha. The claimants preferred Land Acquisition References noted above which were decided by the impugned judgment dated 19.2.1987 whereby it was held that the market value of the land was Rs. 20,000 per bigha. The claimants were also given additional amount under Section 20(1A) at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value, solatium at the rate of 30%, interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of possession and cost under Section 27(2) of the Act.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad, nine tenure holders/claimants out of fifteen have preferred these appeals which has been connected with First Appeal No. 273 of 1996 Raj Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned court below in determining the market value of the land arbitrarily determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha whereas it should not be less than Rs. 40,000 per bigha.
6. The learned Additional District Judge while determining the market value of the land has first of all considered the sale deed. dated 7.12.1978 allegedly executed by one Hari Prakash in favour of Hoshiyar Singh in respect of Khasra No. 245 measuring 2-17-12 bighas. In this sale deed the vendor had sold his 1/3 share for a consideration of Rs. 12,000. This sale deed was considered by the S.L.A.O. but the learned reference court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the S.L.A.O. erred while awarding compensation on the basis of this sale deed.
7. The next sale deed which was considered and examined by the learned reference court is the sale deed dated 4.9.1975 executed by Kalu and others in favour of Harish Chandra for a consideration of Rs. 18,000. The land in this sale deed was sold at Rs. 20 per sq. yard. The said land situated at a distance of 12 miles from Hapur. The said sale deed was executed 4 years before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. As the sale deed was for a very small piece of land measuring 8.84 sq. yard and the land was abadi land, therefore this sale deed was neither relied upon by the S.L.A.O. nor by the learned reference court. However, as the sale deed relates to abadi land and very small piece of land therefore this sale deed was rightly discarded.
8. The claimants have filed another sale deed dated 23.3.1978 whereby a land measuring 0-1-17 was sold for a consideration of Rs. 14,250. The land of the sale deed situated in the same village. This sale deed was executed one year before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned reference court has held that the land in question can be equated with the land involved in the sale deed, as regard to the potentiality because both the land situate in the same village. The learned reference court has not considered the said sale deed in determining the compensation without assigning any reason. The learned standing counsel has argued that the sale consideration of the land if calculated will come more than Rs. one lac per bigha and the appellants have never claimed compensation at such excessive rate but only at the rate of Rs. 40,000 per bigha therefore it cannot be a basis for determining compensation of the land involved.
9. The learned reference court has referred an award of S.L.A.O. dated 2.3.1983 relied upon by the claimant which relates to village Badha. In the said case S.L.A.O. has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,500 per bigha. The said land is 6 kms. away from National High Way but the land in question is near National High Way. Moreover the land situates near Simbholi Sugar Factory therefore the learned reference court has opined that the S.L.A.O. must have granted compensation at least at the rate of Rs. 18,500 per bigha.
10. The claimants in the reference court has submitted another sale deed dated 10.8.1983 which was executed for Rs. 52,000 but the sale deed was rejected because it was executed after 5 years from the date of notification.
11. It appears that the learned reference court has determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 20,000 influenced by the demand of the claimants as shown in the award of S.L.A.O. wherein it is mentioned that the tenure holders demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha. No counter appeal has been filed by the State nor there is any counter objection preferred by the State. It appears that the reference court has come to conclusion that the market value of the land in question should be at least at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha because the land in question stands on the better footing than the land involved in the award given by the S.L.A.O. dated 2.3.1983 in respect of a different village Badha. As the appellants themselves claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha before the S.L.A.O. therefore they cannot be held entitled for larger amount. Moreover they could not show any exemplar which may entitle him more compensation than awarded by the reference court.
12. The appeals fail and are dismissed.