Allahabad High Court
Pratap Singh And Others vs Noida Thru. Chief Exe. Officer And ... on 27 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:150703 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL No. - 113 of 2025 Court No. - 35 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 370371 of 2012 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 370368 of 2012.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 Kartar Singh S/o Dhandu, who has died on 12.4.2004, leaving behind his two sons namely Neeraj, Sandeep and wife Prakasho.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay occurred because the LRs are illiterate and 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. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which is uncontroverted.
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 delay condonation and substitution application are allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 4 of 2021 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 5 of 2021.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 Pratap Singh son of late Dhandu, who has died on 21.7.2017, leaving behind his two sons namely Sunil Bhati, Kishan Bhati and wife Smt. Parmali.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay occurred because the LRs are illiterate and 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. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which is uncontroverted.
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 delay condonation and the substitution application are allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 13 of 2025 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 14 of 2025.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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.3 Ranveer Singh son of late Dhandu, who has died on 2.2.2025, leaving behind his three sons namely Jitendra Bhati, Nishu Bhati, Arun Bhati and his widow Pappan Devi.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the correct name of appellant no.3 is Ranveer but it has been erroneous mentioned as Rajveer in the decree of the reference court and also in the memo of appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay occurred because the death certificate of Ranveer Singh could not be obtained within stipulated time.
5. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application, which is uncontroverted.
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 delay condonation and substitution application are allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to amend the memo of appeal.
9. The appellants are at liberty to get corrected the name of appellant no.3 from Rajveer Singh to Ranveer Singh, by moving an appropriate application before the reference court.
Order on Appeal:-
1. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Shivam Yadav counsel appearing for NOIDA alongwith Standing Counsel for the State are present.
2. Appeal is admitted.
3. The instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been preferred by the land owners against the impugned award and decree dated 29.11.2003 passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in L.A.R. No.351 of 1997 (Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & another), whereby compensation at the rate of Rs.2,14,775/- per Bigha (Rs.71/- per square yard), alongwith other statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been awarded to them.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants 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.
5. He further submitted that against the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above appeals, Noida has not preferred any appeal before the Apex Court, as such, the order of the Division Bench of this Court has become final.
6. Sri Shivam Yadav learned counsel for the Noida 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 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.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. This appeal was filed on 11.3.2004 but the deficiency of the court fees was made good on 21.10.2021, as such, the appellants are not entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the period from 11.3.2004 to 21.10.2021.
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.
August 27, 2025 Gaurav