Allahabad High Court
Asha Ram And Anr. vs U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad And Anr. on 19 July, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 827 of 2000 Appellant :- Asha Ram And Another Respondent :- U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad And Another Counsel for Appellant:- Surendra Tiwari, B.K. Mishra, Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent:- Shri Kant, Vivek Saran With: First Appeal Nos.-150 of 2001, 412 of 2001, 497 of 2001, 539 of 2001, 551 of 2001, 552 of 2001, 1067 of 2001, 1072 of 2001, 1073 of 2001, 1074 of 2001, 1075 of 2001, 63 of 2002, 64 of 2002, 450 of 2002, 713 of 2002, 854 of 2002, 1000 of 2002, 1001 of 2002, 1003 of 2002, 1004 of 2002, 1005 of 2002, 1006 of 2002, 581 of 2003, 1017 of 2003, 296 of 2004, 324 of 2004, 750 of 2004, 751 of 2004, 752 of 2004, 898 of 2004, 940 of 2004, 959 of 2004, 368 of 2005, 369 of 2005, 370 of 2005, 371 of 2005, 482 of 2005, 483 of 2005, 906 of 2014, 907 of 2014, 929 of 2014, 621 of 2015, 695 of 2015, 696 of 2015, 697 of 2015, 698 of 2015, 702 of 2015 and 318 of 2016. First Appeal Defective Nos.-414 of 2001, 439 of 2001, 460 of 2001 and 392 of 2002. ------- Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.) These are fifty-three first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941. The appeals are arising out of five separate judgments and orders of the Reference Court passed in the respective land acquisition references. First Appeal Nos. 827 of 2000, 412 of 2001 and 552 of 2001 arise out of the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2000 of the Reference Court. First Appeal Nos. 150 of 2001, 497 of 2001, 539 of 2001 and 854 of 2002 have been filed against the order of the Reference Court dated 13th April, 1998. First Appeal Nos. 898 of 2004, 906 of 2014, 907 of 2014, 929 of 2014, 318 of 2016 and First Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2002 have been filed against the order of the Reference Court dated 02nd April, 2002; whereas First Appeal No. 551 of 2001 has been filed challenging the order of the Reference Court dated 18th February, 2000. Rest thirty-nine first appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2001 passed in the respective references by the Reference Court. All the aforesaid first appeals arise out of common notifications for acquisition.
There are two sets of first appeals: one in respect of acquisition for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and the other in respect of acquisition for the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Though the judgments of the Reference Court are different, yet both the sets of appeals arise out of common notification for the same acquisition proceeding. The issues of facts and law are similar in both the sets of appeals, hence learned counsel for the parties have agreed that both the sets of appeals may be decided by a common judgment.
First we deal with the first set of appeals led by First Appeal No. 827 of 2000.
Earlier a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 28th October, 2015 had affirmed the order of the Court of Reference awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard to the land owners. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the land owners/ appellants preferred special leave petitions, being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28776-28777 of 2016, which were converted to Civil Appeal No. 18634-18635 of 2017, along with several other special leave petitions. The Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 09th December, 2017 has disposed of the civil appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that its relevant judgment rendered in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1506-1517 of 2016, Pradeep Kapoor (sic Kumar) v. State of U.P., was not placed before the Court and was not considered. Accordingly, the matter has been remitted back to this Court to reconsider afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case. The order of the Supreme Court reads as under:
"Leave granted.
Learned counsel for the parties have filed certain documents along with the Special Leave Petitions. The said documents are taken on record, particularly the decision of this Court in SLP (C) Nos. 1506-1517/2016, titled as Pradeep Kapoor vs. State of U.P. These documents were not on record before the High Court. They are taken on record. These appeals are remitted back to the High Court for deciding afresh. A prayer is made for consideration of the aforesaid documents. It is open to the parties if they so desire to adduce additional evidence, in that event, the High Court may ask Reference Court to record additional evidence and to record finding and then High Court may decide the appeals afresh.
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are remitted to the High Court for being decided afresh in accordance with law.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
Consequent upon the matter has been heard by this Court.
We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, Sri Akhilesh Kalra and Sri Yash Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants in the respective appeals, and Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the respondent- Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, and learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that they do not want to adduce any additional evidence, hence there is no need to remit the matter back to the Reference Court. It was stated that learned counsel for the parties shall confine their submissions only to the materials which are on the record.
The Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad2 is a housing and development board. One of the functions of the Parishad is to frame and execute housing and improvement schemes and other projects. The Parishad framed Scheme No. 3 for construction of the residential colony in six villages, namely, Makanpur, Prahladgarhi, Jhandapur, Mohiuddinpur, Arthala and Sahibabad in Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. Total 1229.914 acres land was proposed to be acquired. The details of the proposed land for acquisition are as follows:
Sl. No. Village Area (in acres) 1 Arthla 358-93 2 Jhandapur 36-947 3 Prahladgarhi 437-379 4 Makanpur 75-6156 5 Mohiuddinpur Kanavani 141-97 6 Shahibabad 107-05 At the instance of the Parishad the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 26th June, 1982 in respect of the aforesaid land. On 28th February, 1987 the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published. The Special Land Acquisition Officer3 passed the award on 27th February, 1989 and determined the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard. The land owners made applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation. Five separate set of references were made. The lead case in the present appeals arise out of LAR No. 56 of 1995 (Asha Ram and others v. State of U.P.), which was connected with LAR No. 205 of 1995, LAR No. 209 of 1995 and LAR No. 236 of 1992. They were referred to the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. These references were in respect of Villages Jhandapur, Shahibabad, Arthala, Mohiuddinpur and Prahladgarhi. The first set of references i.e. LAR No. 56 of 1995 and three others were decided by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide its judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2000, thereby enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs.50/- per square yard to Rs.120/- per square yard.
Dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 23rd May, 2000 passed by the Reference Court, the appellants- Asha Ram and others preferred the first appeals under Section 54 of the Act, being First Appeal Nos. 827 of 2000, 412 of 2001 and 552 of 2001. The other first appeals of first set have also been filed arising out of the common order of the SLAO.
The facts of the second set of appeals are that initially the land in question was acquired by the notification dated 26th June, 1982 at the instance of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam (for short, the "Parishad Adhiniyam") for acquisition of the 2127 acres of land situated in Village Makanpur, Prahlad Garhi, Jhandapur, Moinuddinpur, Arthala, etc. Meanwhile the State Government took a decision to give 731 acres of land to the Ghaziabad Development Authority out of the proposed land which was notified under Section 4 of the Act read with under Section 28 of the Parishad Adhiniyam. 731 acres of land was situated in revenue Villages Makanpur, Prahlad Garhi, Hasanpur and Owapur. In this regard a Government order was issued on 31st July, 1984. It was agreed between the parties that both the parties shall carry out trunk structural services jointly and both the authorities shall work after the mutual discussion. It was also resolved that whatever compensation shall be decided for the acquisition of the land, the same shall be borne by the Parishad and the Development Authority of their respective area. The notification under Section 32 of the Parishad Adhiniyam relatable to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28th February, 1987. A separate notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued seeking to acquire a huge tract of land including 710 acres of land, which was initially subject matter of acquisition made by the Parishad. On 24th February, 1988 the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued.
It is pertinent to mention that the notification under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the land acquired for the Parishad (under Section 32 of the Parishad Adhiniyam) was issued on 28th February, 1987 and on the same day a separate notification under Section 4 of the Act was published for the Ghaziabad Development Authority in respect of 731 acres of land, which was earlier the subject matter of acquisition by the Parishad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 27th February, 1989 determining the market value at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard. The tenure holders- appellants filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for reference. The Reference Court vide its judgment dated 29th March, 2001 enhanced the compensation from Rs.50/- to Rs.120/- per square yard. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Reference Court dated 29th March, 2001, thirty-nine first appeals, as have been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, have been preferred.
In respect of the land, which was acquired for the Parishad, the SLAO vide his order dated 27th February, 1989 has passed the award wherein the same compensation i.e. Rs.50/- per square yard was determined. The land loosers in the said case made an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference. The Reference Court vide its judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2000 enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard.
Aggrieved by the said reference order, the land loosers in that case filed a first appeal, being First Appeal No. 827 of 2000, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 28th October, 2015. The Division Bench upheld the order of the Reference Court and affirmed the rate of compensation of Rs.120/- per square yard.
The tenure holders against the order of the Division Bench dated 28th October, 2015 preferred special leave petitions being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28776-28777 of 2016, which were converted to Civil Appeal No. 18634-18635 of 2017. The Supreme Court vide order dated 09th December, 2017, as quoted above, has disposed of the said civil appeals along with the connected appeals and has remanded the matter back to this Court to decide the matter afresh in the light of the judgment of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1506-1517 of 2016.
A Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 28th October, 2015 dismissed First Appeal No. 827 of 2000, Asha Ram and another v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, holding that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard is a fair compensation and no interference was called for in the order of the Reference Court.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, special leave petitions, as mentioned above, were preferred by the claimants and the order of the Division Bench dated 28th October, 2015 has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to this Court to decide afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra).
Arising out of the same acquisition proceeding and the award passed by the SLAO, three other judgments dated 13th April, 1998, 18th February, 2000 and 02nd April, 2002 have been passed by the Reference Court in the respective land acquisition references of the tenure holders. Against these three judgments of the Reference Court, 11 first appeals, as have been mentioned above, have been filed by the farmers which are connected in this batch of first appeals.
All the six villages, where the land has been acquired, situate in Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. In the past the State Government has acquired a large tract of land for the industrial development for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the Ghaziabad Development Authority from 1982 onwards by different notifications under the Land Acquisition Act and a series of litigation ensued by the land loosers, whose all/ most of the holdings have been taken by the State for the planned development activities. The situation of these villages have been mentioned by the SLAO and the Reference Court in its order. The SLAO after inspection of the area of the land has found that the land in question situates towards the south of Delhi-Ghaziabad Link Road, in the east side there is well developed residential colonies at Mohan Nagar and the Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the west, Vaishali and Kaushambi schemes developed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority are situated and the villages are only at a distance of 14 kms. from the limits of Delhi. In their reference applications also, the appellants-claimants have mentioned that the entire area is well developed. It is near the National Highway-24 and it is well connected with the railways and bus services and the area is surrounded by several well developed residential colonies and the residential area. They have claimed that the market value of the land was Rs.8000/- per square yard and it has potential for residential and commercial use.
Learned counsel for the appellants have drawn our attention to some of the judgments of this Court in respect of acquisition of the land of same village Makanpur and the adjoining villages, where market value of the land has been determined at Rs.297/- per square yard. In all those cases the notifications have been made within a span of 2-6 years and recently in all those cases, irrespective of the dates of notifications, the compensation has been awarded at the same rate i.e. Rs.297/- per square yard.
In the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Kashi Ram and others, First Appeal No. 910 of 2000, and other connected appeals, the land was acquired in the same village Makanpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad for the planned development by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the said case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12th September, 1986, which was published in the Gazette on 28th February, 1987 and the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 24th February, 1988. The possession of the land was taken by the State on 14th June, 1988 and 29th June, 1988. The SLAO passed the award and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard. The matter was referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs.50/- per square yard to Rs.90/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the order of the Reference Court, the Ghaziabad Development Authority filed 60 appeals and the land owners had also filed the appeals for enhancement of compensation and lowering the deductions from 33% made towards development cost. The Division Bench by a common judgment decided the batch of first appeals vide judgment and order dated 13th November, 2014. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and the appeals of the claimants/ land owners for enhancement of compensation were allowed. This Court found that the claimants/ land owners shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 13th November, 2014 passed in First Appeal No. 910 of 2000 the Ghaziabad Development Authority preferred Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5815 of 2015, Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Kashi Ram and others, and other connected special leave petitions, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 05th May, 2015 with the following order:
"We find no reason to interfere in these matters by exercising our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution. Consequently the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed."
The Ghaziabad Development Authority filed review applications which were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 06th October, 2015. The curative petitions filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority also came to be dismissed on 15th March, 2016.
It was urged by learned counsel for the appellants that in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Kashi Ram (supra) the land of the same village Makanpur was acquired and its notification was also around the same period when the land in the present appeals was acquired. Hence, it was urged that the appellants are also entitled for the same compensation.
Our attention has been drawn to following cases, wherein the State has acquired the land for the planned development in and around the same years and in all those cases the compensation has been uniformly awarded at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard. It would be convenient to give the details of those cases in a tabular form:
Sl.No. Village Dates of notification u/s 4 and 6 of the Act No. and name of the lead first appeal Compensation awarded by SLAO per square yard (in Rs.) Compe-nsation given by Reference Court per square yard (in Rs.) Compensation awarded by High Court per square yard (in Rs.) Compen-sation awarded by the Supreme Court per square yard (in Rs.) 1 Chalera Banger 30.10.1987 15.12.1989 First Appeal No. 744 of 2001, Jagdish Chandra & ors. v. NOIDA & anr.
43.64 148.75 297/-
....
2Makanpur 12.09.1986 24.02.1988 First Appeal No. 910 of 2000, GDA v. Kashi Ram & ors.
50/-
90/-
297/-
SLP dismissed. Order of High Court affirmed.
3Makanpur 15.03.1988
------
First Appeal No. 522 of 2009, Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. 72/-
135/-
297/-
Civil Appeal No. 1506-1517 of 2017 dismissed on 11.9.17.
4Makanpur 12.09.1986 24.02.1988 First Appeal No. ....
Narendra Kumar 50/-
90/-
115/-
297/-
5Makanpur 16.08.1988 22.02.1989 First Appeal No. 41 of 2005, Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. & ors.
90/-
160/-
160/-
Rs.297/-
Civil Appeal No. 16960-17, arising out of SLP No. 13802/16, Jai Prakash (dead) by L.Rs. And others v. State of U.P. 6 Bhangel Begumpur, Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilpatabad Tehsil Dadri 27.02.1988 15.12.1989 First Appeal No. 1056 of 1999, Raghuraj Singh & ors. v. State of U.P. & ors.
35.07 93.75 297/-
....
7Adjoining Village of Bhangel Begumpur, Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilpatabad Tehsil Dadri 05.01.1982
----
First Appeal No. 564 of 1997, Khajan Singh and others v. State of U.P., decided on 11.10.2012 ......
....
297/-
Civil Appeal No. 6775 of 2013, Harbhajan Kumar and others v. Collector, LA. While deciding similar civil appeal extended the benefit of enhanced compensation @ Rs.297/-
Our attention has also been drawn to an order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 459 of 1995, Noida v. Smt. Charan Kaur, dated 22nd January, 2019, whereby a review application has been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (P.K.S. Baghel, J.) was a member. In the said case in respect of the same village Makanpur a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 15th March, 1998 proposing to acquire 463.959 acres of land. The SLAO awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.72/- per square yard. The Reference Court has enhanced it to Rs.106/- per square yard. The land owners preferred First Appeal No. 459 of 1995 and 48 other first appeals. The Division Bench of this Court decided all the said first appeals by a common judgment and order dated 30th October, 2014 setting aside the judgment dated 24th April, 1993 and remanded the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. In the said case, review application was filed on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 744 of 2007, Jagdish Chandra v. NOIDA, reported in 2008 (1) ADJ 253, wherein the land of the same area was acquired, has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard. It was argued on behalf of the review applicant that the said judgment was not brought to the notice of this Court. The review application was allowed on the ground of similar facts.
It is pertinent to mention that against the same reference order another first appeal, being First Appeal No. 737 of 1995, was decided by this Court on 13th November, 2015 and this Court has remitted the matter back to the Reference Court to decide it afresh. The order of the Division Bench dated 13th November, 2015 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25237-48 of 2015, wherein leave was granted and the special leave petitions were converted to Civil Appeal No. 1506-17 of 2016 (Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others). The Supreme Court vide its order dated 16th February, 2016, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 308 (Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another), allowed the civil appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13th November, 2015 and remanded the matter back to this Court to decide afresh. While remanding the matter back to this Court, the Supreme Court has made following observations:
"2. In our opinion certain aspects with regard to the valuation and location of the land have not been properly discussed and therefore, the matters require reconsideration by the High Court. For instance, we may say that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued on 10-3-1988. The appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs.135 per square yard for the land belonging to them, whereas in respect of certain land, said to be similarly situated, which had been acquired in the year 1986, compensation of Rs.297 per square yard had been awarded.
3. We are of the view that the aforestated aspects have not been clarified because normally the price of the land goes on increasing, but the reason as to why lesser amount has been given to the appellants, has not been properly explained in the impugned judgment4."
Pursuant thereto, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the first appeal vide order dated 21st April, 2016, whereby this Court enhanced the compensation in the light of the earlier orders passed in respect of similarly situated land at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard for the same village. The relevant part of the order of the Division Bench dated 21st April, 2016 reads as under:
"28. We are definitely of the opinion that similarly situated farmers, whose land holding in the same village, has been acquired under subsequent notifications, would be entitled to the benefit of the rate which had been determined by the High Court in respect of earlier notification. The land of the farmers acquired under the subsequent notification similarly situate, cannot be any less valuable than the one determined by the Court in respect of earlier Notification, except for special reasons.
*** *** ***
41. We are also of the opinion that in view of the fact that the land of the appellants was acquired in 1988, and because the statute does not empower the authorities or reference court to deduct any amount from the market value determined specifically when no development of the land had been shown to have taken place nor any amount has been spent for the same, there should be no deduction from the rate so determined. We draw support from the judgement in the case of Jagdish Chandra and others vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another, 2008(1) ADJ 253 and Ganeshi Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (5) ADJ 306.
42. The appeals of the tenure holders are allowed. The orders of the Reference Court dated 24.3.1993 and dated 30.4.1993 are set aside. It is held that tenure holders shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard."
Regard may be had to the fact that in the case of Narendra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 10429-10430 of 2017, the Supreme Court has quoted with approval the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra) in the following terms:
"14) This Court in Civil Appeal No. 1506-1517 of 2016 titled Pardeep Kumar etc. etc. v. NOIDA which pertains to subsequent acquisition proceeding in the same village Makanpur, but falling under NOIDA, had on 16th February, 2016 set aside the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and remanded the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration in view of the judgments passed by the coordinate benches of the same High Court in Kashi Ram's case as well as other cases. The High Court, after the remand vide its judgment dated 11th April, 2016 in First Appeal No. 522 of 2009 titled, Pardeep Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. & Anr. awarded the same enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per sq. Yard even in the same case also. The High Court while awarding the compensation at the same rate held:
"27. Therefore, one of the questions which needs to be examined by us is, can the appellants be denied the same rate of compensation only because the filed by them before the reference court did not disclose the rate which they seek now in terms of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra). Kanshi Ram case.
xxx xxx xxx
29. It is settled law that the compensation under the Act, 1894 had to be fair and just. Fairness requires that all those similarly situated are treated similarly. Technicalities qua rate as per exemplars filed by poor farmers, who are illiterate, has to be given only such importance as may not defeat their right of fair and just compensation qua compulsory acquisition of land holdings.
30. The determination of acquisition at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) Kashi Ram case has therefore, to be taken as the fair rate determined for the land situated in the village Makanpur with regard to the notification issued on 12th September, 1986 as well as under Notification dated 15th March, 1988."
After the judgment of Narendra (supra) in the case of Jai Prakash (Dead) by L.Rs. and others v. State of U.P. and another, Civil Appeal No. 16960 of 2017, the Supreme Court on the basis of parity has awarded the same compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard. In the said case earlier the appellants were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.160/- per square yard. The land in this case also is situated in Village Makanpur, District Ghaziabad. The relevant part of the order of the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash (supra) reads as under:
"We have considered the matter and we find that the respondent-State has not averred and established that the two lands i.e. the land in Narendra's case (supra) and the land in the instant case, are different and diverse so as to deny parity of compensation to the appellants.
We find that there is nothing on record which requires that two lands should be treated differently. It is a fact that lands in both cases cited above, are situated on the same side of the road as is apparent from the Map on record. We, therefore, have no hesitation in granting the same rate of compensation to the present appellants i.e. Rs.297/- per square yard, as was awarded in Narendra's case (supra).
We order accordingly.
Hence, the appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the courts below are set aside.
We further direct that the compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard be paid to the appellants by the respondents within a period of six months from today."
Similarly, in First Appeal Defective No. 162 of 1987, Karim and others v. State of U.P., vide order dated 03rd December, 2014 this Court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the Parishad- respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 56 of 2005, U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal and others, dated 21st July, 2015, wherein this Court has determined the compensation in respect of the land of the same villages which were acquired for the Parishad. In the said case the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act read with Section 28 of the Parishad Adhiniyam was published on 26th June, 1982. The SLAO passed the award at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square yard and after making 25% deduction it was determined at the rate of Rs.37.50 per square yard. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.160/- per square yard and thereafter it applied 25% deduction and ultimately the market rate was found to be at Rs.120/- per square yard. Before the Division Bench the only submission made was in respect of deduction of 25%. It was submitted that the said deduction was not justified. However, this Court did not accept the said submission and dismissed the first appeal. Against the said order a special leave petition, being SLP (C) No. 4636 of 2016, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jawahar Lal and others, was preferred, which was dismissed along with other special leave petitions by the Supreme Court by the following order dated 28th March, 2016:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material.
Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and O.T. is granted.
We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed."
We have perused the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. In the said case, no submission was raised seeking parity of compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard as in the case of similarly situated land. The only submission raised before the Division Bench was in respect of the deduction of 25%. In view of the said distinguishing fact, the said judgment has no application in the facts of the present case.
In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and others5 the Supreme Court has laid down the law in respect of capitalisation of yield method. In the said case the land was being used exclusively by the owners for growing mulberry crops and it was used for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court has held that it is settled principle of law that onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. We have perused the said judgment. In the said case, the claimants have failed to produce on record the sale instances and they have also not produced on record any specific evidence to justify the compensation awarded to them by the Reference Court. The Court has noticed "in fact, there is hardly any evidence, much less cogent and impeccable evidence to support increase on the basis of net income capitalization method.". In our view, the said case has no application in the present facts and circumstances.
In Loveleen Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others6 the Supreme Court observed that the Reference Court and the High Court did not consider the sale-deeds produced on behalf of the State. Hence, the Court was of the view that the matter needs reconsideration by the High Court as the evidence was not properly appreciated and the matter was remitted to the High Court.
It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Narendra (supra) has approved the judgment of Pradeep Kumar (supra) and has considered elaborately the provision of Section 28-A of the Act. Section 28-A of the Act reads as under:
"28A Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.--(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18."
The Supreme Court in Narendra (supra) has observed as under:
"7) The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those land owners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the Legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell of their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court etc. In order to ensure that the land owners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for ''fair compensation'. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners whose land was taken away by the same Notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them.
8) No doubt the judicial system that prevails is based on adversarial form of adjudication. At the same time, recognising the demerits and limitations of adversarial litigation, elements of social context adjudication are brought into the decision making process, particularly, when it comes to administering justice to the marginalised section of the society.
9) History demonstrates that various forms of conflict resolution have been institutionalized from time to time. Presently, in almost all civil societies, disputes are resolved through courts, though the judicial system may be different in different jurisdictions. Traditionally, our justice delivery system is adversarial in nature. Of late, capabilities and method of this adversarial justice system are questioned and a feeling of disillusionment and frustration is witnessed among the people. After all, what is the purpose of having a judicial mechanism - it is to advance justice. Warren Burger once said:
"The obligation of the legal profession is... to serve as healers of human conflict...(we) should provide mechanisms that can produce an acceptable result in shortest possible time, with the least possible expense and with a minimum of stress on the participants. That is what justice is all about."
10) Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon explains the meaning and contour of social justice adjudication as the application of equality jurisprudence evolved by the Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the socio-economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the Court has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. The Courts, in such situations, generally invoke the principle of fairness and equality which are essential for dispensing justice. Purposive interpretation is given to subserve the ends of justice particularly when the cases of vulnerable groups are decided. The Court has to keep in mind the ''problem solving approach' by adopting therapeutic approaches to the maximum extent the law permits rather than ''just deciding' cases, thereby bridging the gap between law and life, between law and justice. The notion of access to justice is to be taken in a broader sense. The objective is to render justice to the needy and that means fair solutions to the conflict thereby providing real access to ''justice'."
In view of the clear enunciation of law in the aforesaid judgments, we find that the appellants are entitled for fair compensation. The fairness requires that "all those similarly situated are treated similarly."
Accordingly, we find that all the appellants in both the sets of first appeals are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard. We have mentioned in detail regarding the other similar cases where compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard even though there were gaps between the different notifications, but the villages are same. As discussed above, Narendra (supra) lays emphasis on fair compensation and on parity of compensation in respect of similarly situated land. A careful analysis of the said judgment clearly shows that gaps of a few years in the notifications have been ignored by the Supreme Court and this Court also in the subsequent judgment in First Appeal No. 522 of 2009, Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. We do not find any reason for not awarding compensation at the same rate. Accordingly, the orders of the Reference Court dated 13th April, 1998, 18th February, 2000, 23rd May, 2000, 29th March, 2001 and 02nd April, 2002, which are under challenge in the respective appeals, are set aside. The appellants are entitled to compensation of the land at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard along with other statutory benefits under the law which shall be calculated and paid to them expeditiously within six months from today.
All the pending amendment and substitution applications are allowed. In those appeals where there is deficiency of court fees, the benefit of this order will be given only after making the deficiency good. The other pending applications accordingly stand disposed of.
All the appeals are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19th July 2019 SKT/-