Supreme Court - Daily Orders
New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Deo Karan on 1 May, 2018
Bench: Arun Mishra, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4879 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.6002/2018)
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ... APPELLANT(S)
AUTHORITY (NOIDA)
VS.
DEO KARAN & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4880 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.9910/2018)
&
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4881 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.9911/2018)
&
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4883 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.9988/2018)
&
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4882 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.9914/2018)
&
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No…………………..D.8073/2018)
&
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No………………....D.8075/2018)
Signature Not Verified
O R D E R
Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2018.05.09 16:51:22 IST Reason:
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2
3. At the outset we record our dissatisfaction with respect to the way in which High Court has determined the compensation for the land acquired and had directed that the same would be made applicable to all other pending matters.
4. In the instant case, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 14.3.1980 and in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) …….D.No.8075/2018 the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 5.1.1982. The High Court has relied upon the decision in the case of Jagdish Chandra & Ors. Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA & Anr. decided on 14.12.2007 in First Appeal No.744/2001 and connected matters; and the case of Raghuraj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Decided on 19.05.2010 in First Appeal No.1056/1999 and other connected matters.
5. In the case of Jagdish Chandra (supra), the Notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 30.10.1987 and the rate determined was Rs.297/- per square yd. In that case, the agreement to sell dated 19.4.1989 was relied upon for determining the aforesaid valuation of Rs.297/- per square yd. In the case of Raghuraj Singh (supra), Notification under Section 4 was issued on 24.3.1988, i.e., much later than the Notifications in question issued in 1980 and 1982. Again the reliance was placed on Raghuraj Singh (supra), which also relied upon the agreement to sell dated 12.01.1989. The aforesaid 3 course adopted by the High Court, was wholly impermissible and bad in law. The way in which the High Court had determined the compensation, that too on the basis of the agreement to sell, was not a satisfactory or permissible way of arriving at the valuation in the aforesaid decision on which reliance had been placed. Thus, aforesaid decisions of Jagdish Chandra and Raguraj Singh could not have been relied upon for basing the determination of value with respect to the Notifications issued in the years 1980 and 1982. We are shocked that how the High Court has determined the same valuation for the notifications issued in the years 1980 and 1982, when the rates were determined in the aforesaid cases of Jagdish Chandra and Raghuraj Singh with respect to the Notifications under Section 4 issued in the years 1987 and 1988.
6. We record our dissatisfaction towards the slipshod and perfunctory manner and the hazardous way in which the compensation was determined by the High Court, that too on the basis of agreement to sell.
7. In the instant cases, the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation with respect to the Notifications issued in the year 1980 and 1982. Dissatisfied thereby, reference was sought. The rate claimed by the land owners was Rs.40/- to Rs.50/- per square yd. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the compensation @ Rs.12497.72p. per bigha and the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation @ Rs.63,525.00 per 4 bigha along with solatium and statutory interest. Aggrieved thereby, the appeals were preferred in the High Court. The High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard.
8. We have gone through the Award passed by the Reference Court. No sale exemplar evidence has been adduced in the instance case. Certain Awards were placed on record before the Reference Court. One of the Awards related to the Notification issued under Section 4 was dated 2.3.1977. Whereas, in the case of Genda, the Reference Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.18,475/- per bigha. The 2nd set of evidence was in the form of Award passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad, in which the rate determined was Rs.8.12p. The third Award adduced on evidence was with respect to the Notification under Section 4 issued on 30.4.1978. The Award was passed on 15.2.1977, determining the rate of compensation @ Rs.20/- per square yd. There was yet another Award in which the rate with respect to Notification issued under Section 4 on 27.4.1982, was determined @ Rs.148.25p. per square yd. As there is a rising trend in the prices, we deem it appropriate, as the Notifications had been issued in the years 1980 & 1982 in the instant cases, to adopt the price @ Rs.148.75p. per square yd. to be the basis for determining the valuation. That would hold good for the Notification issued in 1982, whereas it would be appropriate to grant the compensation @ Rs.125/- per square 5 yd. with respect to the Notification issued in 1980. Thus, the determination made by the High Court was wholly impermissible and was based on the judgment which could not have been applied to the instant cases. Thus, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and modify the determination made by the Reference Court. The compensation is determined for 1982 Notification @ Rs.148.75p., rounded of to Rs.149/- per square yd. and for 1980 Notification @ Rs.125/- per square yd. The same shall be paid along with other statutory benefits, as may be admissible. Let the compensation be paid within a period of three months from today.
9. The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending applications stand disposed of.
10. We have not been required to decide any other question. Applications for seeking substitution, for condonation of delay, amendment of memo of parties, etc., if any, also stand allowed.
...........................J. [ARUN MISHRA] ...........................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] New Delhi;
1st May, 2018.
6
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).6002/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-11-2017 in FA No.757/2012 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEO KARAN & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C)No.9910/2018 (XI) SLP(C)No.9911/2018 (XI) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T.) SLP(C)No.9988/2018 (XI) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment) SLP(C)No.9914/2018 (XI) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T.) SLP(C)No………………..D.No.8073/2018 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP) SLP(C)No…………….D.No(s).8075/2018 (XI) Date : 01-05-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhyay,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak,AOR Ms. Shashi Pathak,Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi,Adv. Mr. Akhilendra Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vandit Mishra,Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mishra,Adv.7
Ms. Janhvi Sharma,Adv.
For M/s. Anuradha & Associates,AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Sarita Purohit) (Saroj Kumari Gaur)
Court Master Branch Officer
(Signed order is placed on the file)