AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Kumar, J.—The above two appeals have been filed against the award dated 18121981 passed by the Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur in reference Case No. 18 ol''1981 arising out of award No, 7 dated 3091980 given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moti Jheel Kanpur concerning village Gujaini.
The appeal No. 285 of 1984 has been filed by the land owners whereas Appeal No. 305 of 1985 has been filed on behalf of the State of U.P.
From the side of the land owners it was alleged that compensation allowed by the Tribunal was inadequate and insufficient, while from the side of State of U.P. it was alleged that award contrary to law.
Learned Counsel for the claimants without going into the merits of the case contended that there were several appeals of the same village and locality about which the award was given by the same Tribunal in references and against the order of the Tribunal appeals were filed before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra and Hon''ble Mr. Juslice V.P. Goel, decided the said appeals vide judgment and order dated 1721995.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the claimant that because the land in question is similarly situated in the same village and locality compensation the claimants are also entitled to the (sic) as allowed in the above noted judgment of this Court. The said judgment was given in First Appeal No. 733 of 1986 the file of which was summoned for perusal and the judgment shows that six appeals were decided by single judgment The judgment also shows that the land acquired was situated in village Gujaini and compensation at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per bigha was awarded to the land owners. In the said appeals the point raised before the Division Bench of this Court was that the land owners were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per bigha and it was held that in absence of any material to distinguish the advantage of the land involved in the said appeals the land owners were also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per bigha.
Learned Counsel for the claimants in this case argued the same point before us. To determine whether the acquired laid in dispute was similarly situated and in the same locality and same village, even a map was submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimants to show that the land was situated in the same village and in the same locality. A comparative chart was also submitted showing the plots involved in first Appeals Nos. 733 of 1986, 889 of 1987, 57 of 1986, 358 of 1987. The chart shows that plots shown in the earlier appeals were in the same locality where the plots of appeals in questions are situated.
Learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the Tribunal awarded different rates for even and uneven land, however, this Court while deciding the aforementioned appeals gave flat rate of Rs. 3,000 as compensation on the date of preliminary notification and Rs. 30,000 per bigha as damage under Section 48Aof Land Acquisition Act for entire land covered in the first appeals.
In is further contended that the land in dispute was also included in the same scheme about which earlier appeals were decided.
Learned Standing Counsel could not submit any document to distinguish the plots about which earlier appeals were allowed and the plots, which were under consideration in the (sic) appeals. Learned Standing Counsel was given opportunity to show the difference between the plots as marked in the map submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimants. The map shows that plots in earlier appeals and plots in the instant appeals are almost situated in the same locality.
When nothing has been shown or submitted by the learned Standing Counsel showing distinction between two set of plots it is just and proper that the appellantsclaimants in these appeals must get the same compensation as was allowed in the earlier appeal.
Placing reliance upon the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in K. Periasami v. SubTehsildar, Land Acquisition (1994) 4 SCC180, learned Counsel for the claimants argued that Hon''ble Supreme Court has decided about parity of market value to be allowed to the land owners, the land of whom was situated in (sic) area and acquired by the same notification.
The same view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 733 of 1986, discussed above.
In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the First Appeal No. 285 of 1984 is allowed in part. We hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per bigha. They will also be entitled to other benefit under the Land Acquisition Act prior to its amendment Act No. 68 of 1984.
The Appeal No. 305 of 1985, filed by the State of U.P. is hereby dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal No. 305/85 dismissed. Appeal No. 285/84 partly allowed.