State of U.P. vs Ummed Singh

Rakesh Sharma, J.

Re: First Appeal Nos. 446, 447, 448 of 1993

These land acquisition Apppeals are of the year 1993 and the same have come up for hearing today before this Court.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent land-owners.

Under challenge in these appeals are the judgment and orders dated 24.3.1993, rendered by the Reference Court, that is X Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr enhancing the compensation awarded to the respondent land owners.

It emerges from the record that plots of land situate in Village Parwana Mahmoodput, Pargana and Tehsil Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahr (Greater NOIDA area) was acquired by the State Government for which notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquistion Act was issued on 12.3.1983, notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 15.9.1984 and possession of the land acquired was taken on 28.3.1985. ''The award was rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 28.3.1985.''

Being aggrieved by the award, the respondent-land owners had sought references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was answered in favour of the respondent-land owners by the Reference court, that is, X Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.3.1993.

As per leanred Standing Counsel, the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.3 7,000/= per Pakka Bigha is highly excessive. ''The Reference court has enhanced the Compensation without taking into account relevant materials, exemplar sale deeds and other relevant factors, though 46 exemplar sale deeds were produced before the Reference court to demonstrate the correct market value of the land.'' Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court as reported in 2009 (2) A.W.C. 1617 (SC), Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. etc. (vide Paragraph 13 of the judgment) in support of his submission that the relevant factors were not taken into account by the court below while rendering the impugned judgment and order.

On the other hand, Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent-land owners, has resisted the motion and supported the judgment rendered by the Reference court. ''He has drawn attention of the Court towards a judgment of the District Judge, Buland Shahr, dated 6th August, 1994, in respect of the land of the same area, wherein it has been provided that the land owners of the same area were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.37,000/= per Pakka Bigha for their acquired land.'' The operative portion of the said judgment is being reproduced below:

''All the above 17 land acquisition references are allowed.'' The claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,000/= per pucca Bigha for their respective lands mentioned in the body of the judgment. ''The claimants are further entitled to receive solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation. ''They are further entitled to get additional amount @ 12% per annum from the date of notification to the date of possession on the enhanced amount.'' ''The claimants are further entitled to receive amount @ 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and ''thereafter the claimants shall receive interest @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of enhanced amount of compensation strictly as per mandatory rules.'' The parties shall bear their own costs.

According to him this judgment has become final as the same has not been set aside any superior court or challenged in any other forum.? The Reference court has rightly placed reliance on this judgment and another judgment rendered by the Reference Court in Land Reference No. 207 of 1992, Ganga Prasad v. State of U.P.

This Court has considered the materials on record, pleadings of the parties and arguments put-forth by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties. ''This Court has taken note of the fact that the land was situated in Village Parwana Mahmoodpur, Pargana and Tehsil Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar.'' The lands were acquired in the year 1983 for the purposes of laying Lakhawati (Drainage Canal). ''It has come on record that the acquired lands were irrigated land falling in the plain Ganga Yamuna Area where electricity, water and approach road was available.'' The land was close to a Degree College. ''The respondent-landowners had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. One lakh per Pucca Bigha for their land acquired.''

The Reference Court, while dealing with the references, has taken into account the market value of the land of the adjouning Village, that is, Prempur. ''The land-owners/Villagers of Village Prempur were allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,000/= per pucca bigha by the Reference court.'' The Reference court had also taken into account and had given weightage to the nature, status, quality and location of the lands acquired, which were falling within the Greater NOIDA area and as such naturally in the years 1983-1985, the prices of the land were growing rapidly. ''Since the lands of the adjacent Village Prempur were assessed at a higher market value, that is, at the rate of Rs. 37,000/- per pucca bigha, for the same quality of land approachable by road having electricity, water and other facilities, it could not be justified to allow compensation at a lower rate for the lands in dispute.'' ''The learned Additional District Judge has taken into account all the relevant factors and has assessed the market value'' at the same market value, that is, at the rate of Rs. 37,000/= per pucca bigha.

So far as exemplar sale deeds are concerned, the Revenue Officials, Ameen, had deposed before the court below that the quality of the land was recorded as ''Jungle Avval'' and Jungle Doyam quality. ''In the present case, the lands acquired were'' of superior quality. ''It was of same quality as of the lands of Village Prempur and as such the exemplar sale deeds were rightly ignored by the Reference Court.

This Court has also scrutinised the judgments impugned in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. etc. 2009 (2) A.W.C. 1617 (SC). Aapplying the parameters, positive and negative factors, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and orders of the Reference Court.

In view of the dicussions made above, the Appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.

Consequences shall follow.

Lower court''s record, if summoned, shall be transmitted back immediately.