The upshot of the above discussion is that when compensation has already been fixed in the appeal of Prabha Shanker Yadav(Supra), the other claimants whose adjoining plots have been acquired under the same notification would be entitled to receive the compensation of the like amount. This is exactly what has been done by the Reference Court. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the claimant-respondents herein also should get the same treatment as was given to the case of Prabha Shanker YadavPetitioner :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Swaroop Yadav & Others
Order Date :- 11.10.2012
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J. Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against judgment and award of civil court dated 28.10.1998 passed by the court below in Land Acquisition Reference No.313 of 1992. The Court below has determined compensation amount under Section 23 of the Act @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in respect of 2.05 acres of land acquired under the Act along with other statutory benefits.
The background facts may be noticed in brief:
The State of U.P. issued notification under Section 4 of the Act to acquire land for establishment of Technical Education Institution by the department of Technical Education. Notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 30th May, 1987. It was followed by notification dated 30th January, 1988 issued under Section 6 of the Act. On 31st March, 1988, possession was taken. The notification was issued to acquire 219.79 Acres of land of village Kocha Bhawar, inclusive of plot no.1457 total area 2.05 acres of the claimants-respondents, herein. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Officer') by his award dated 31st March, 1989 awarded compensation at Rs.27972.03 per acre for the acquired land as also for and the trees etc. separately. The amount offered under award given by the Officer was considered inadequate by the respondents herein and they filed an application before the District Magistrate for making reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court and the matter was referred. It was registered as L.A.R. No.313 of 1992. The appellant contested the claim of the claimants by filing written statement.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the reference court framed issues. The only issue which is relevant for present purposes is whether adequate compensation was given to the claimants-respondents by the Officer. Under the said issue, reference court has found that the compensation awarded by the Officer was inadequate and was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved by the award of Civil Court, the present first appeal has been filed.
Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for the respondents.
We find that in respect of the same notification, we have in First Appeal No.527 of 1993 (State of U.P versus Prabha Shanker Yadav & others) decided on 24.9.2012 has affirmed the award of the Reference Court awarding compensation @ Rs1,00,000/- per acre.
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.Periasami versus Sub Tehsildar (1994) 4 SCC 180, the compensation in the present case should also be awarded at the same rate as has been done by this Court in the case of Prabha Shanker Yadav (Supra) . The learned standing counsel on the other hand disputes the same and submits that each case should be decided on its own fact.
Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
The Supreme Court in the case of K.Periasami versus Sub Tehsildar (1994) 4 SCC 180) has held as follows:
"It is not disputed that the market value of lands acquired pursuant to 'he said notification has been determined by different Benches of the High Court such as Appeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 1226 of 1986 titled Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. Lakshmi Ammall. The lands for which the and Acquisition. Officer had awarded at the rate of Rs 70 per cent and the civil court on reference, had enhanced such rate to Rs 850 per cent, the High Court on appeal had enhanced the rate in two cases to Rs 1000 per cent and in two other cases to Rs 1050 per cent. Since the lands under consideration in the present appeals are situated in the same area and were acquired under ,he same acquisition and the Land Acquisition Officer himself had treated the lands to be in a better advantageous position than the lands covered in the other appeals, it would be clear that the lands in these appeals are possessed of better advantageous features than the lands covered by the judgment in other appeals by fixing their value at the rate of Rs 92 per cent. This fact was not noticed by the learned Judge, while disposing of the appeals, as it is observed that there is no evidence as to parity of the advantageous position of the lands to award the same compensation. The observation appears to be incorrect. The treatment of the lands by the Land Acquisition Officer himself by awarding to them a rate of Rs 92 per cent in these appeals while he had awarded the rate of Rs 70 per cent of lands in the other appeals furnishes the intrinsic evidence that the lands in question are situated in a better advantageous position than the lands concerned in the other appeals. When such is the situation the appellant also is entitled to parity of market value for the acquired lands".
In the case of Daisy v.State of Kerala, AIR 1971 SC 2272, the Apex Court took the view that the value fixed in earlier case can be taken as a guide and fix the value in respect of contiguous land acquired subsequently or appealed subsequently after comparing the relative situation and importance of the two plots.
The Apex court in the case of Union of India versus Dhyan Singh, 2000 AIR SCW 4936 said that
"In view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.4405 of 1997 in which the land value has been fixed at Rs.16,750 per bigha for lands covered by the same Notification there is no reason not to adopt the same value as for the land involved in this appeal also".
In the case of Bhim Singh v.State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 4382 the Apex Court observed as follows:
"Even otherwise when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceedings this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier Judgments."
The upshot of the above discussion is that when compensation has already been fixed in the appeal of Prabha Shanker Yadav(Supra), the other claimants whose adjoining plots have been acquired under the same notification would be entitled to receive the compensation of the like amount. This is exactly what has been done by the Reference Court.
In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the claimant-respondents herein also should get the same treatment as was given to the case of Prabha Shanker Yadav (Supra), and the judgment of the court below is on terra firma.
We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
(A.K.Tripathi(II),J) (Prakash Krishna,J)
Order Date :- 11.10.2012
Print Page
Respondent :- Ram Swaroop Yadav & Others
Order Date :- 11.10.2012
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J. Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against judgment and award of civil court dated 28.10.1998 passed by the court below in Land Acquisition Reference No.313 of 1992. The Court below has determined compensation amount under Section 23 of the Act @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in respect of 2.05 acres of land acquired under the Act along with other statutory benefits.
The background facts may be noticed in brief:
The State of U.P. issued notification under Section 4 of the Act to acquire land for establishment of Technical Education Institution by the department of Technical Education. Notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 30th May, 1987. It was followed by notification dated 30th January, 1988 issued under Section 6 of the Act. On 31st March, 1988, possession was taken. The notification was issued to acquire 219.79 Acres of land of village Kocha Bhawar, inclusive of plot no.1457 total area 2.05 acres of the claimants-respondents, herein. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Officer') by his award dated 31st March, 1989 awarded compensation at Rs.27972.03 per acre for the acquired land as also for and the trees etc. separately. The amount offered under award given by the Officer was considered inadequate by the respondents herein and they filed an application before the District Magistrate for making reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court and the matter was referred. It was registered as L.A.R. No.313 of 1992. The appellant contested the claim of the claimants by filing written statement.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the reference court framed issues. The only issue which is relevant for present purposes is whether adequate compensation was given to the claimants-respondents by the Officer. Under the said issue, reference court has found that the compensation awarded by the Officer was inadequate and was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved by the award of Civil Court, the present first appeal has been filed.
Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for the respondents.
We find that in respect of the same notification, we have in First Appeal No.527 of 1993 (State of U.P versus Prabha Shanker Yadav & others) decided on 24.9.2012 has affirmed the award of the Reference Court awarding compensation @ Rs1,00,000/- per acre.
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.Periasami versus Sub Tehsildar (1994) 4 SCC 180, the compensation in the present case should also be awarded at the same rate as has been done by this Court in the case of Prabha Shanker Yadav (Supra) . The learned standing counsel on the other hand disputes the same and submits that each case should be decided on its own fact.
Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
The Supreme Court in the case of K.Periasami versus Sub Tehsildar (1994) 4 SCC 180) has held as follows:
"It is not disputed that the market value of lands acquired pursuant to 'he said notification has been determined by different Benches of the High Court such as Appeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 1226 of 1986 titled Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. Lakshmi Ammall. The lands for which the and Acquisition. Officer had awarded at the rate of Rs 70 per cent and the civil court on reference, had enhanced such rate to Rs 850 per cent, the High Court on appeal had enhanced the rate in two cases to Rs 1000 per cent and in two other cases to Rs 1050 per cent. Since the lands under consideration in the present appeals are situated in the same area and were acquired under ,he same acquisition and the Land Acquisition Officer himself had treated the lands to be in a better advantageous position than the lands covered in the other appeals, it would be clear that the lands in these appeals are possessed of better advantageous features than the lands covered by the judgment in other appeals by fixing their value at the rate of Rs 92 per cent. This fact was not noticed by the learned Judge, while disposing of the appeals, as it is observed that there is no evidence as to parity of the advantageous position of the lands to award the same compensation. The observation appears to be incorrect. The treatment of the lands by the Land Acquisition Officer himself by awarding to them a rate of Rs 92 per cent in these appeals while he had awarded the rate of Rs 70 per cent of lands in the other appeals furnishes the intrinsic evidence that the lands in question are situated in a better advantageous position than the lands concerned in the other appeals. When such is the situation the appellant also is entitled to parity of market value for the acquired lands".
In the case of Daisy v.State of Kerala, AIR 1971 SC 2272, the Apex Court took the view that the value fixed in earlier case can be taken as a guide and fix the value in respect of contiguous land acquired subsequently or appealed subsequently after comparing the relative situation and importance of the two plots.
The Apex court in the case of Union of India versus Dhyan Singh, 2000 AIR SCW 4936 said that
"In view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.4405 of 1997 in which the land value has been fixed at Rs.16,750 per bigha for lands covered by the same Notification there is no reason not to adopt the same value as for the land involved in this appeal also".
In the case of Bhim Singh v.State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 4382 the Apex Court observed as follows:
"Even otherwise when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceedings this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier Judgments."
The upshot of the above discussion is that when compensation has already been fixed in the appeal of Prabha Shanker Yadav(Supra), the other claimants whose adjoining plots have been acquired under the same notification would be entitled to receive the compensation of the like amount. This is exactly what has been done by the Reference Court.
In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the claimant-respondents herein also should get the same treatment as was given to the case of Prabha Shanker Yadav (Supra), and the judgment of the court below is on terra firma.
We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
(A.K.Tripathi(II),J) (Prakash Krishna,J)
Order Date :- 11.10.2012
No comments:
Post a Comment