U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Kunj Bihari and Others

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri A.K. Rai, Sri Rajendra Prasad and Sri P.A. Khan learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

The present first appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2003 and the decree dated 22.10.2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika/Avas Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 05 of 1994, Kunj Bihari v. State of U.P. and Ors. in Reference Petition filed u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, with respect to the land situated at village Ismailganj, District Lucknow, bearing Khata No. 15, Khasra No. 606 A, area 5-13-7-0 and Khata No. 184, Khasra No. 606 (sa) area 0-6-18-0. The present appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the enhancement made by the Tribunal is not as per the market value of the land in question.

Learned Counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, has submitted that the learned Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 12.9.1991, passed in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1983, Sardar Joginder Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. had determined the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. As the land of the respondent-claimants is adjacent to the land involved in Civil Misc. Case No. 17 of 1983, as such the market rate at Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. determined by the Tribunal with respect to the land in question, was just and proper. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in the case of Sardar Joginder Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court has confirmed the rate of Rs. 3/-per sq. ft. as determined by the Tribunal.

In this regard, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that against the judgment of the learned Tribunal, First Appeal No. 98 of 1991, Sardar Jogender Singh v. The State of U.P. and Ors., and other similar First Appeals such as, First Appeal No. 99 of 1991, First Appeal No. 15 of 1992 and First Appeal No. 16 of 1992, were filed in this Court, which were decided by the common judgment and order dated 23.9.2002, wherein the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft was confirmed. It is further submitted that against the said judgment, certain Special Leave Petitions were filed before Hon. the Supreme Court, by judgment and order dated 28.8.2008, all the said civil appeals of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad as well as the appeals of the claimants were dismissed, confirming the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. ft. The judgments of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, have been placed on record.

The learned Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 35 of 1978, S.P. Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors. similar connected First Appeals, by judgment and order dated 17.9.1980, has confirmed the enhancement of amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/-per sq. ft. awarded by the Tribunal against which the Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1978, preferred by the State of U.P., was dismissed by the Hon. Apex Court.

It is submitted that the land in question relates to the same notification, same award and belongs to the same scheme and situated at the same locality. The Hon. Apex Court while affirming the Division Bench judgment of this Court has upheld the enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/-per. sq. ft., as reasonable and adequate for the land acquired for development and establishment of Ram Sagar Misra Indira Nagar Housing Scheme, Lucknow.

The above position has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

The Tribunal, while dealing with the controversy, had framed issues covering all the points put forth before it for adjudication. The Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant factors which were necessary for assessing the market value and the quantum of compensation admissible to the land owners. Tribunal has dealt with various exemplars and had also taken into account the location of the land. The land in dispute was having all the necessary civic amenities and was well connected with the National Highway as well as easily approachable. The exemplars which had been cited were taken into account. Scrutinising these facts in the light of the recent decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court vide judgment reported in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, it is amply clear that the Tribunal had carefully appreciated various factors and passed a well considered, reasoned and a speaking judgment, which in my opinion, does not require any interference.

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the market value fixed by the learned Tribunal with respect to the land in question was just and proper and was as per the market rate prevailing at that time. There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

The respondents-claimants shall be entitled to get the amount of compensation as per the judgment and order dated 30.09.2003 and the decree dated 22.10.2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika/Avas Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 05 of 1994, Kunj Bihari v. State of U.P. and Ors.

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.