Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 567 of 1992
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. & Another
Respondent :- Murtuza Hussain & Another
The Apex Court has laid down in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, JT 2001 (3) SC 90 that largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, area about 2 hectares of land which cannot be said to be of small piece of land. The Apex Court has held that while considering the question of largeness of area, the land of land holders should not be clubbed together and it should be considered from stand point of view of each land holders whose land has been acquired.
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the parties jointly stated that the common question and fact are involved in all these appeals as they relate to one land acquisition proceedings.
The facts are noticed from First Appeal No. 567 of 1992.
First Appeal No. 567 of 1992 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12th May, 1992 passed by Xth Additional Disrict and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in L.A.R. No. 255 of 1990, Murtuza Hussain & others v. State of U.P. & others, whereby the court below has awarded compensation @ Rs.46,000/- per bigha pukhta along with other statutory benefits.
The background facts may be noticed in brief :
State of U.P. by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 4th April, 1987 proposed to acquire 44 Bigha, 13 Biswa, 10 Dhur land of village Sandawali for the purposes of construction of Muzaffar Nagar bypass road. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12th March, 1988. The award was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5th December, 1988. Possession was taken on same day i.e. 5th December, 1988. The land holders were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in its award and at their instance, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act to Civil Court. Civil Court has allowed the references in part by enhancing compensation amount to Rs.46,000/- per bigha pukhta. These appeals have filed by the State of U.P. against the judgments and decrees of the reference court.
Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents who appeared in connected First Appeal No. 764 of 1991.
The only argument raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that the court below has not provided for any basis for making enhancement in compensation amount. Submission is that the sale-deed dated 16th September, 1985 which has been relied upon as exemplar sale-deed, the court below has not made any deduction towards smallness of area involved in the said sale-deed.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the reference court has allowed 30% deduction and no further deduction is possible.
At the very outset, it may be placed that in First Appeal No. 567 of 1992, total area involved is 2 Bigha and 6 Biswa. Similarly, in other appeals also, small area are involved. The Apex Court has laid down in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, JT 2001 (3) SC 90 that largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, area about 2 hectares of land which cannot be said to be of small piece of land. The Apex Court has held that while considering the question of largeness of area, the land of land holders should not be clubbed together and it should be considered from stand point of view of each land holders whose land has been acquired.
The court below has noticed that two sales-deed dated 16th September, 1985 and another dated 23rd September, 1985 relate to village Sandawali. Through the sale-deed dated 16th September, 1985, 1/2 of khata no. 52 was sold for a sum of Rs.1,51,388/-. Total area of khata no. 52 is 4 Bigha, 11 Biswa, 15 Biswansi. Through sale-deed dated 16th September, 1985, it appears that remaining land of khata no. 52 was sold for the same area i.e. Rs.1,51,388/-. The selling rate comes to Rs.66,000/- per bigha pukhta. The reference court thereafter made a deduction of 30% to adjust inflation of selling price, if any, and arrived at that the selling price should be Rs.46,000/- per bigha pukhta. The court below has further found that the acquired land has great potentiality for commercial purposes. It has noticed that the acquired land is surrounded by residential houses, Polo Factory, Tube-well, Bhawani Factory Industries, M/s Bhagirathi Oil Steel, Refrigerates Pvt. Ltd., etc.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, no further deduction was required and it cannot be said that the deduction of 30% for selling price is in any manner, in adequate. I do not find any error in the judgment of the court below.
In the result, all the appeals are hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Prakash Krishna,J)
Order Date :- 28.1.2013
Print Page
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. & Another
Respondent :- Murtuza Hussain & Another
The Apex Court has laid down in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, JT 2001 (3) SC 90 that largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, area about 2 hectares of land which cannot be said to be of small piece of land. The Apex Court has held that while considering the question of largeness of area, the land of land holders should not be clubbed together and it should be considered from stand point of view of each land holders whose land has been acquired.
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the parties jointly stated that the common question and fact are involved in all these appeals as they relate to one land acquisition proceedings.
The facts are noticed from First Appeal No. 567 of 1992.
First Appeal No. 567 of 1992 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12th May, 1992 passed by Xth Additional Disrict and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in L.A.R. No. 255 of 1990, Murtuza Hussain & others v. State of U.P. & others, whereby the court below has awarded compensation @ Rs.46,000/- per bigha pukhta along with other statutory benefits.
The background facts may be noticed in brief :
State of U.P. by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 4th April, 1987 proposed to acquire 44 Bigha, 13 Biswa, 10 Dhur land of village Sandawali for the purposes of construction of Muzaffar Nagar bypass road. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12th March, 1988. The award was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5th December, 1988. Possession was taken on same day i.e. 5th December, 1988. The land holders were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in its award and at their instance, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act to Civil Court. Civil Court has allowed the references in part by enhancing compensation amount to Rs.46,000/- per bigha pukhta. These appeals have filed by the State of U.P. against the judgments and decrees of the reference court.
Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents who appeared in connected First Appeal No. 764 of 1991.
The only argument raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that the court below has not provided for any basis for making enhancement in compensation amount. Submission is that the sale-deed dated 16th September, 1985 which has been relied upon as exemplar sale-deed, the court below has not made any deduction towards smallness of area involved in the said sale-deed.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the reference court has allowed 30% deduction and no further deduction is possible.
At the very outset, it may be placed that in First Appeal No. 567 of 1992, total area involved is 2 Bigha and 6 Biswa. Similarly, in other appeals also, small area are involved. The Apex Court has laid down in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, JT 2001 (3) SC 90 that largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, area about 2 hectares of land which cannot be said to be of small piece of land. The Apex Court has held that while considering the question of largeness of area, the land of land holders should not be clubbed together and it should be considered from stand point of view of each land holders whose land has been acquired.
The court below has noticed that two sales-deed dated 16th September, 1985 and another dated 23rd September, 1985 relate to village Sandawali. Through the sale-deed dated 16th September, 1985, 1/2 of khata no. 52 was sold for a sum of Rs.1,51,388/-. Total area of khata no. 52 is 4 Bigha, 11 Biswa, 15 Biswansi. Through sale-deed dated 16th September, 1985, it appears that remaining land of khata no. 52 was sold for the same area i.e. Rs.1,51,388/-. The selling rate comes to Rs.66,000/- per bigha pukhta. The reference court thereafter made a deduction of 30% to adjust inflation of selling price, if any, and arrived at that the selling price should be Rs.46,000/- per bigha pukhta. The court below has further found that the acquired land has great potentiality for commercial purposes. It has noticed that the acquired land is surrounded by residential houses, Polo Factory, Tube-well, Bhawani Factory Industries, M/s Bhagirathi Oil Steel, Refrigerates Pvt. Ltd., etc.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, no further deduction was required and it cannot be said that the deduction of 30% for selling price is in any manner, in adequate. I do not find any error in the judgment of the court below.
In the result, all the appeals are hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Prakash Krishna,J)
Order Date :- 28.1.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment