Jagan Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Manzarul Islam, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

This is a First Appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act filed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.1976 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition Reference No. 265 of 1972, whereby the claim for enhancing the compensation for the land acquired has been refused.

Sri M. Islam, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ ` 1.10 per sq. yard. The acquisition notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 15.12.1967, notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 11.01.1969, the possession was taken on 06.03.1969 and the award was made on 23.03.1970. According to him the appellants had filed exemplar sale deeds wherein the land adjacent and nearby the appellants'' land had been sold @ Rs. 4.35p per sq. yard three and half years prior to the notification. Learned counsel states that the appellants has not made a claim of Rs. 4.35p per sq. yard but had made claim for Rs. 2.00p per sq. yard and as such by rejecting the exemplar and denying the claim to the appellants the Reference Court has committed an illegality.

Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent has contested the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that there was no evidence of title or possession of the appellants over the land in question and further that the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (U.P.S.I.D.C.) was not made a party before the Reference Court.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, insofar as the objection of learned counsel for the U.P.S.I.D.C. that there was no evidence of title or possession of the appellants over the land in question is concerned, the same does not require consideration for the reason that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation to the appellants and there was no dispute with respect to the title or possession of the appellants.

Insofar as his submission that the U.P.S.I.D.C. was not made a party before the Reference Court is concerned, admittedly the U.P.S.I.D.C. was the authority for whom the land was acquired and it had to pay the compensation, however, in this appeal the U.P.S.I.D.C. has been impleaded as a party and has been heard.

From the record it appears that under the same notification and in the same scheme for the same area, the land of one Mam Chand was acquired and he was also awarded compensation @ Rs. 1.10p per sq. yard. He had filed a First Appeal No. 382 of 1977 (Mam Chand Vs. State of U.P. & others) which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 25.03.1982, wherein the compensation to Mam Chand was enhanced to Rs. 2.00p per sq. yard in addition to solatium @15% on the said amount and interest @ 6%. The said judgment in First Appeal No. 382 of 1977 (Mam Chand Vs. State of U.P. & others) is available on record alongwith Civil Misc. Application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench indicates that the question of quantum of compensation of the land under the same notification and same scheme was considered in great detail and the Division Bench came to a conclusion that the compensation @ Rs. 1.10p per sq. yard required to be enhanced to Rs. 2.00p per sq. yard. There is no reason in the present appeal nor any ground has been made out so as to enable this Court to hold any other view with respect to the appellants in their claim for compensation @ Rs. 2.00p per sq. yard.

Under such circumstances, this appeal is also decided in the same terms as Appeal No. 382 of 1977 (Mam Chand Vs. State of U.P. & others) by the Division Bench on 25.03.1982 and the appellants are held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 2.00p per sq. yard in addition to solatium @ 15% on the said amount and interest on the difference in compensation till date the appellants are paid the excess amount.

In result, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed.

No order is passed as to costs.