# Agra Development Authority v. Nafisa Begum &Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 159
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-25
- **Case number:** FIRST APPEAL No733 of 2017
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/agra-development-authority-v-nafisa-begum-ors-44432
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Alok Kumar Tripathi,
Sri Kishan Jain.

A. Ratio decidendi - is the underlying
principle, namely, the general reasons or
the general grounds upon which the
decision is based - It is essence of a
decision - Every observation and various
observations made in the judgment is
not the ratio decidendi. (Para 47 [i])

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section
23 (1) - relevant date to determine
market
value
for
the
purpose
of
compensation under Section 23(1) - is
the date of gazetter publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
- date of publication of notice is not
relevant. (Para 47 (ii))

C. Market value of land acquired under
the Act has to be determined by the
court as on the date of the publication of
the notification in the Gazette under
Section 4(1) of the Act. (Para 47 [iii])
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
D. Fair market value of the acquired land
is required to be determined on the basis
of the market rate of the adjacent lands
similarly situated to the acquired lands
prevailing on the date of acquisition or/
and
prior
to
acquisition
but
not
subsequent to the date of acquisition.
(Para 47 [iii])

E.
Determination
of
market
value-
Market
value
is
determined
with
reference to the open market sale - of
comparable land in the neighbourhood of
a willing seller to a willing buyer on or
before
the
date
of
preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act- Not safe to rely upon an auction
sale, except where an open auction sale
is the only comparable sale transaction
available.
 (Para 47 [xi])

F. Sale deeds pertaining to portion of lands
which are subject to acquisition is most
relevant piece of evidence for assessing
the market value of the acquired lands.
 (Para 47 [xiv])

G. Market value of wholly developed
commercial plots cannot be compared
with
the
under-developed
or
undeveloped
or
agricultural
land
although it may be adjoining or situated
at a little distance. (Para 47 [xvi])

H. Exemplars - general rule highest of
the exemplars, if it is a bonafide
transaction has to be considered and
accepted.

 (Para 47 [viii])

Held :-Judgments of the reference
court
in
rejecting
the
sale
deed
exemplars and relying upon bid/ lease
deeds
of
dates
subsequent
to
acquisition, is wholly erroneous, illegal,
contrary to the mandate of Section
23(1) of the Act

Subsequent auction/ lease deeds of
developed
commercial
plots
of
'Taj
Nagari Phase-I Scheme' cannot be made
basis to determine market value of the
previously acquired land for 'Taj Nagari
Phase-II Scheme' (Para 47 [xvii])

Matters remitted back to the reference
court to decide the references afresh in
accordance with law.

First Appeals allowed. Cross-objections
disposed off.

List of cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,844 of 116,837. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39844 for what follows._

1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs. Nafisa Begum & Ors.
159
law does not mean that learned Company
Judge permitted appellant to get its liability
settled against Company which is already
under the process of winding up by
impleading Company as defendant and
without seeking any permission from Court.
The two things are different. It was always
open to appellant to file a suit against
recovery proceedings initiated by PICUP
challenging said recovery proceedings but
without impleading Principal Debtor in that
case. In such case, Section 446 obviously
would not be come in picture but since in the
present case, appellant not only has
impleaded Principal Debtor, as defendant-2,
but also attempted to get determination of his
liability vis-a-vis obligations and property of
Company, in my view, Court below has
rightly held that suit was barred by Section
446 of Act, 1956.

13. In fact, after the order was passed
by learned Company Judge, law has further
developed with respect to liability of
Guarantor and in respect of recovery
proceedings initiated by PICUP against
Guarantor by taking recourse to the provisions
of U.P. Act, 1972, without initiating any such
proceedings against Principal Debtor. A larger
Bench in Sobran Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
Others (2014) 10 SCC 799, held that it can
do so since Guarantor's liability is coextensive
with
Principal
Debtor
and
Guarantor cannot absolve from its liability on
the ground that financial institution failed to
take timely steps for recovery of its dues from
Principal Debtor.

14.

The
above
point
for
determination is accordingly answered
against appellant.

15. Appeal lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

FIRST APPEAL No733 of 2017
Alongwith

212 of 2017,341 of 2018, 345 of 2018,346 of
2018, 262 of 2019, 269 of 2019, 270 of 2019,
274 of 2019, 347 of 2019, 350 of 2019, 351 of
2019, 352 of 2019, 353 of 2019, 387 of 2019, 388
of 2019, 389 of 2019, 390 of 2019, 354 of 2019.

Agra Development Authority ...Appellant
Versus
Nafisa Begum &Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jagannath Maurya, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Alok Kumar Tripathi,
Sri Kishan Jain.

A. Ratio decidendi - is the underlying
principle, namely, the general reasons or
the general grounds upon which the
decision is based - It is essence of a
decision - Every observation and various
observations made in the judgment is
not the ratio decidendi. (Para 47 [i])

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section
23 (1) - relevant date to determine
market
value
for
the
purpose
of
compensation under Section 23(1) - is
the date of gazetter publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
- date of publication of notice is not
relevant. (Para 47 (ii))

C. Market value of land acquired under
the Act has to be determined by the
court as on the date of the publication of
the notification in the Gazette under
Section 4(1) of the Act. (Para 47 [iii])
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
D. Fair market value of the acquired land
is required to be determined on the basis
of the market rate of the adjacent lands
similarly situated to the acquired lands
prevailing on the date of acquisition or/
and
prior
to
acquisition
but
not
subsequent to the date of acquisition.
(Para 47 [iii])

E.
Determination
of
market
value-
Market
value
is
determined
with
reference to the open market sale - of
comparable land in the neighbourhood of
a willing seller to a willing buyer on or
before
the
date
of
preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act- Not safe to rely upon an auction
sale, except where an open auction sale
is the only comparable sale transaction
available.
 (Para 47 [xi])

F. Sale deeds pertaining to portion of lands
which are subject to acquisition is most
relevant piece of evidence for assessing
the market value of the acquired lands.
 (Para 47 [xiv])

G. Market value of wholly developed
commercial plots cannot be compared
with
the
under-developed
or
undeveloped
or
agricultural
land
although it may be adjoining or situated
at a little distance. (Para 47 [xvi])

H. Exemplars - general rule highest of
the exemplars, if it is a bonafide
transaction has to be considered and
accepted.

 (Para 47 [viii])

Held :-Judgments of the reference
court
in
rejecting
the
sale
deed
exemplars and relying upon bid/ lease
deeds
of
dates
subsequent
to
acquisition, is wholly erroneous, illegal,
contrary to the mandate of Section
23(1) of the Act

Subsequent auction/ lease deeds of
developed
commercial
plots
of
'Taj
Nagari Phase-I Scheme' cannot be made
basis to determine market value of the
previously acquired land for 'Taj Nagari
Phase-II Scheme' (Para 47 [xvii])

Matters remitted back to the reference
court to decide the references afresh in
accordance with law.

First Appeals allowed. Cross-objections
disposed off.

List of cases cited:-

1. Executive Engineer Karnatka Housing Board
vs. Land Acquisition Officer and others,
{(2011) 2 SCC 246 (Paras-1, 4, 5 and 6),
2. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority
vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal and another
{(2011) 9 SCC 207 (Paras-31 to 36),

3. Major General Kapil Mehra vs. Union of
India and another {(2015) 2 SCC 262 (Paras25, 26 and 27)},

4. Bhupal Singh and others vs. State of
Haryana {(2015) 5 SCC 801},

5.
Maya
Devi
(dead)
through
legal
representatives and others vs. State of
Haryana and another {(2018) 2 SCC 474
(paras-4 and 5)},

6. Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand,
{(2010) 10 SCC 693},

7. Lal Chand vs. Union of India, {(2009) 15
SCC 769},

8. T.S. Ramchandra Shetty vs. Chairman
Karnataka Housing Board and others {(2009)
14 SCC 334},

9. Ranvir Singh and others vs. Union of India
{(2005)12 SCC 59},

10. Bangaru Narshinga Rao, Naidu and others
vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Vizianagaram,
{(1980) 1 SCC 575},

11. Deo Karan and others vs. State of U.P. and
others 2017 (122) ALR 78: 2017 (1) ADJ 389
1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs. Nafisa Begum & Ors.
161
12. First Appeal No.467 of 2006 (Ramphal and
others vs. State of U.P. and others) judgment
dated 25.03.2019 in

13. P. Ram Reddy and others Vs. Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Hyderabad
Urban
Development Authority, Hyderabad& others
(1995) 2 SCC 305 (para 8);

14.
Chandrabhan and others Vs. Ghaziabad
Development Authority and others (2015) 15 SCC 343

15. Union of India and another Vs. K.S.
Subramanian (1976) 3 SCC 677 (para 12).

16. Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another
(2009) 15 SCC 769 (paras 14 & 15),

17. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue
Officer Vs. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530 (para 14),

18. Major General Kapil Mehra and others Vs.
Union of India and another (2015) 2 SCC 262
(paras 16,17 & 21)

19. Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh and others (2010)
11 SCC 175 (paras 10 & 22).

20. V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer
and Inspector and others {(2009) 7 SCC 438}.

21. Satish vs. State of U.P. {(2009) 14 SCC
758 (Par-42)},

22. Anjana Molu Desai vs. State of Goa,
{(2010) 13 SCC 710 (para-13)},

23. Chindha Thakre Patil vs. S.L.A.O. {(2011)
10 SCC 787 (para-15)},

24. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) vs. State
of Punjab, {(2012) 5 SCC 432}

25. Mohd. Yusuf and others vs. State of
Haryana and others, AIR 2018 SC 2248.

26. Haryana State Industry Development
Corporation vs. Pranshukh {(2010) 11 sCC 175
(paras-20 and 22)},

27. Udho Das vs. State of Haryana, {(2010) 12
SCC 51 (para-21)},
28. Anjana Molu Desai vs. State of Goa,
{(2010) 13 SCC 710 (para-20)}.

29. Mehta Ravindrarai Ajeet Rai vs. State of
Gujrat, {(1989) 4 SCC 250 (paras-4 and 5)},
State of U.P. vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and
others, AIR 1982 SC 876 (para-3),

30. Chamanlal Hargovind Das vs. S.L.A.O.,
{(1988) 3 SCC 751 (para-9)},

31. Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma and
others, AIR 2018 SC 3511.

32. N. Narasimhaiah vs. State of Karnataka,
1996 (3) SCC 88 (Para-17),

33. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private
Limited and others vs. State of Haryana and
others, 2013 (4) SCC 210 (paras-19 to 24),

34. Surinder Singh Brar and others vs. Union
of India and others, 2013 (1) SCC 403 (para75),

35. V.K.M. Kattha Industries Private Limited vs.
State of Haryana and others, 2013 (9) SCC
338 (para-14)

36. Chandra Bhan vs. GhaziabadDevelopment
Authority and others, (2015) 15 SCC 343
(paras-19 to 21),

37. Arasmeta Captive Power Company
Private Limited and another v. Lafarge
India Private Limited, JT 2014 (1) SC 1
(paras-28 to 36)

38. Delhi Administration (Now NCT of Delhi)
vs. Manoharlal, AIR 2002 SC 3088 (para-5)

39. M/s Amar Nath Om Parkash and others vs.
State of Punjab and others, AIR 1985 SC 218
(paras-8, 11 and 12),

40. State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
and others, AIR 1968 SC 647,

41. Union of India and others vs. Dharnwanti
Devi and others, (1996) 6 SCC 44

42. State of Orissa and others vs. Md. Illiyas,
JT 2005 (10) SC 64 (para-14).
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
43. Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha Vs. Amritsar
Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419

44.Administrator General of West Bengal Vs.
Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150

45. Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chottor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead
by and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385,

46. Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala
Rajamallu and others, (2003) 12 SCC 334,

47. V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) Versus Land
Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642,

48. Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Versus State of
Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, (20

49. Atma Singh Versus State of Haryana and
another, (2008)2 SCC 568

50.Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Versus K.
Manohar Reddy and others, (2010) 12 SCC
707,

51. SpecialLand Acquisition Officer and another
Versus M.K. Rafiq Sahib, (2011) 7 SCC 714,

52. Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of
India and another (2015)2 SCC 262,

53. Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of
Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 (Para-12)

54. Raj Kumar vs. HaryanaState, (2007) 7 SCC
609

55. Executive Engineer, Karnatka Housing
Board vs. Land Acquisition Officers and others,
(2011) 2 SCC 246 (paras-5 and 6)

56. Natural Resources Allocation, In Re,
Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [JT 2012 (10)
SC 145: 2012 (10) SCC 1]

57. Civil Appeal No.4879 of 2018 {New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) VS. Deo
Karan &Ors.} decided on 1.5.2018 (SC)(E-5)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani J.)

1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
J.N. Maurya and Sri Suresh Chandra
Dwivedi,
learned
counsels
for
the
appellants
and
Sri
Rahul
Agarwal
alongwith Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi and
Sri Kishan Jain, learned counsels for the
claimants-respondents.

2. This batch of first appeals and cross
objections arise from one and the same land
acquisition notification for land of village
Basai Mustaqil and involve common facts
and questions, therefore, with the consent of
the learned counsels for the parties, all these
first appeals have been heard together
treating the First Appeal No.733 of 2017
as the leading first appeal. These first
appeals were heard on several occasions at
length including on 13.05.2019, 15.05.2019,
20.05.2019, 27.05.2019 and 28.05.2019. In
First Appeal No.733 of 2017, appellants and
respondents, both have filed paper books.
Cross objections have been filed by the
claimants-respondents in First Appeal
Nos.212 of 2017, 387 of 2019, 262 of 2019,
269 of 2019, 270 of 2019, 274 of 2019 and
347 of 2019.

FACTS

3. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that by notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated
30.01.1989 published in the official
gazette on 30.01.1989 and subsequently,
published
in
local
newspapers
on
14.02.1989
and
15.02.1989,
land
measuring 734.50 acres of villages Basai
Mustquil, Tora, Chamroli and Lakavali,
Tehsil and District Agra, falling partly
within municipal limit (chungi ander) and
partly outside the municipal limit (chungi
bahar) was acquired for "Taj Nagari
Phase-II
Scheme"
of
the
Agra
1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs. Nafisa Begum & Ors.
163
Development Authority (for short 'ADA').
Public notice of the acquisition was
published
by
the
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer (for short the SLAO)
on 04.04.1989. Notification under Section
6(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act
was issued on 08.02.1990. Possession was
taken on 30.03.1991.

4. By the award dated 29.02.1992,
the SLAO determined compensation of all
the acquired land of chungi ander @
Rs.130/- per square yard and for all the
acquired land of chungi bahar @
Rs.97.50 per square yard.

5. Dissatisfied with the award, the
appellant ADA filed a Writ Petition
No.31481 of 1992, which was dismissed
by this Court by order dated 05.01.2000.
Aggrieved, the appellant ADA filed
S.L.P. No.7561 of 2000, which was
allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by
judgment dated 07.02.2001 on the ground
that the appellant- ADA had no notice
under Section 50 of the Act for adducing
evidence and, therefore, the matter was
remitted back to the SLAO for making
award afresh.

6. On remand, the SLAO made his
award
on
05.11.2001
determining
market value for the acquired land of
chungi ander @ Rs.49/- per square
yard and for the acquired land of
chungi bahar @ Rs.39.20 per square
yard. Dissatisfied with the offer made by
the award dated 05.11.2001 passed by the
SLAO,
several
land
owners
filed
references under Section 18 of the Act
which
have
been
decided
by
the
impugned judgment dated 08.02.2017 in
leading Land Acquisition Case No.47 of
2004 (Nafisha Begum and others vs. The
Collector, Agra and others) passed by Sri
Sanjeev Fauzdar, Additional District
Judge/
Presiding
Officer,
Nagar
Mahapalika (Nagar Nigam) Tribunal,
Agra. The reference court determined
the market value for the acquired land
of chungi ander @ Rs.610/- per square
yard and for the acquired land of
chungi bahar @ Rs.405/- per square
yard. Aggrieved with this judgment,
the appellant- ADA has filed the
present bunch of first appeals.

7. All these first appeals involve
acquisition of land of village Basai
Mustaquil. Particulars of land acquisition
references and the acquired khasra plot
numbers which are subject matter of first
appeals, are as under:

Sl.
No.
First
Appeal
No.
Arising from LAR
No.
Claimant's
acquired
Khasra
Plot
No.
(subject
matter
of
Appeals)
1
733
of
2017
47 of 2004 Nafisha
Begam & others
Vs. Collector
473
2
212
of
2017
968 of 2003 Kalua
&
Ors
Vs.
Collector
1994,1997,200
0
3
341
of
2018
979
of
2003
Kanahaiya Lal Vs.
Collector
274

4
345
of
2018
365
of
2004
Doctors
Sahkari
Grih Nirman Samiti
Vs.Collector
185M,186M,1
89M,190Ka

5
346
of
2018
373 of 2004 Sher
Singh Vs. Collector
327
6
262
of
2019
526 of 2004 Raj
Grih Sahkari Awas
Samiti
Vs.
Collector
236

7
269
of
2019
525 of 2004 Sri
Satyanarayan Jain
Vs. State
203
8
270
of
2019
361 of 2004 Smt.
Rajni Verma Vs.
1429,1431
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Collector
9
274
of
2019
363 of 2004 Smt.
Rajni Verma Vs.
Collector
1209,1219
10 347
of
2019
375 of 2004 Raj
Grih Sahkari Awas
Samiti
Vs.
Collector
364
11 350
of
2019
111
of
2008
Narendra Prasad &
Ors Vs. Collector

225
12 351
of
2019
437
of
2004
Surajbhan & Ors
Vs. Collector

340
13 352
of
2019
106
of
2008
Mahendra
Kumar
&
Ors
Vs.
Collector Agra
248,2043Ka,2
082
Ka,2083Ka,20
84 ka,2087
Ka,2115
Ka,2128 Ka,
2129Ka,2136
Ka,2137 Ka
14 353
of
2019
977 of 2003 Sultan
Khan &Ors. Vs.
Collector

450
15 387
of
2019
44 of 2004 Sri
Munna
Lal
and
another
Vs.
Collector
273
16 388
of
2019

972 of 2003 Smt.
Premwati & Ors
Vs. Collector
345
17 389
of
2019
421 of 2004 Bhed
Singh & Ors Vs.
Collector
289,288,290,2
91
18 390
of
2019
128
of
2004
Munshi Lal &Ors.
Vs.
Collector
&
Ors
251
19 354
of
2019
46
of
2004
Natthilal and Amit
Mittal vs. State
338

8. Before the reference court, the
appellants have filed in L.A.R. No.47 of
2004, the following sale deed exemplars
of land of village Basai Mustaqil:

First
Sale
Buye
Khas
Area Consi Rate(
Appe
al No.
(arisi
ng
from
the
judg
ment
in the
above
L.A.
R.)
Deed
Exem
plar
and
Date
r and
Seller
ra
Plot
No.
derat
ion
per
sq.
meter
) Rs.
733
of
2017
109C/
24.2.8
8
Mawa
si/Ka
nhaiy
a
Kunj
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i
141
3
bigha
s
(6912
sq.
meter
s
24000
0/-
34.72

110C/
28.5.8
8
Mune
sh
Garg/
Madh
uban
Nagar
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i
203
2-1212
bigha
:
7248.
93
squar
e yard
2 lac 27.59

111C/
28.5.8
8
Mune
sh
Garg/
Madh
uban
Nagar
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i
453
2-1117
bigha
2 lacs

112C/
8.6.88
Nathi
Lal/D
arbhe
sh
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i
180
3-012
bigha
1,65,0
00/-

113C/
13.10.
88
Anga
d/Bal
dev
Sahka
ri
Awas
1330,
1327
1-6-0
bigha
84,50
0/-
1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs. Nafisa Begum & Ors.
165
Samit
i

114C/
22.10.
88
Babu
Lal/Sr
i Ram
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i
1228,
1260
0-6-0
bigha
21,00
0/-

115C/
15.9.8
8
Panch
sheel
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i/Nir
mal
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i
1998,
1999
1-160
bigha
1,33,2
00/-

116C/
11.10.
88
Shabh
udin/
Suraj
makhi
Gram
in
Sahak
ari
Awas
Samit
i
383
1-0-0 50,00
0/-

117C/
15.2.8
8
Adars
h
Sahka
ri
Grih
Nirm
an
Samit
i/May
a
Nagar
Sahka
ri
Awas
Samit
i
1806,
1890,
1778,
1779,
1789
10
biswa
50,00
0/-

9. With the consent of all the learned
counsels for the parties, the following
questions were framed on 13.05.2019 for
determination in this bunch of first
appeals:-

"Questions"

(a) Whether the date 30.01.1989
when the notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act was published in the official
gazette or the date 04.04.1989 when the
public notice was published by the SLAO,
shall
be
the
relevant
date
for
determination of compensation of the
market value of the acquired land?

(b) Whether the market value of
the acquired land determined by the court
below is lawful and adequate?

(c)
Whether
consideration
received by ADA in auction sale of
developed plots in "Taj Nagari Phase-I
Scheme",
can
be
made
basis
for
determination of market value of the land
acquired by the appellant -ADA for the
scheme in question i.e. "Taj Nagari
Phase-II" particularly when sale deed
exemplars were filed in evidence by the
ADA for determination of market value of
the acquired land under the present
acquisition, i.e. "Taj Nagari Phase-II"."

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE APPELLANTS:-

10. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
senior
advocate
appearing
for
the
appellants submits as under:

(i)
Market
value
of
land
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
as per principles laid down in Section 23
of the Act, is to be determined as on the
date of publication of Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, the
date 30.01.1989, when the Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published in the Gazette, shall be the
relevant date for determination of the
market value under Section 23 (1) of the
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act and not the date of public notice
given by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer i.e. 04.04.1989. Reliance is placed
on the judgment of Deo Karan & others
Vs. State of U.P. 2017(1) ADJ 389 (para
13, 14 and 15) and judgment in First
Appeal No.467 of 2006 decided on
25.3.2019 (paras 20, 23, 25 and 27). He
also refers to the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court relied in these two
judgments.

(ii) The Reference Court has
illegally relied on auction sale of developed
commercial plots of "Taj Nagari Phase-I
Scheme" which can not be made basis to
determine market value of the huge land
measuring 734.50 acres for developing "Taj
Nagari Phase-II Scheme".

(iii) Consideration received by
Agra Development Authority for lease of
developed commercial plots in the year 1989
of "Taj Nagari Phase-I Scheme" can not be
made basis to determine market value of
totally undeveloped agricultural land acquired
by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
dated 30.01.1989. Besides this the lease/sales
of plot of "Taj Nagari Phase-I Scheme" as
relied by the court below are subsequent to the
date of the present acquisition.

(iv) The appellants have led
documentary evidences in the form of sale
deed exemplars which include certain sale
deeds of land of Khasra plots which were
subsequently acquired under the present
acquisition. Thus, these sale deeds filed in
evidence were relevant and were good
exemplars to determine the market value of
land acquired under the present acquisition but
the court below has committed a manifest
error of law and facts not to rely upon these
sale deeds exemplars.

(v) No sale deed exemplar was
filed in evidence by the claimantsrespondents.

(vi)
The
reference
court
committed manifest error of law to rely
upon lease deed dated 11.06.1993 of plot
No.1 and lease deed dated 15.07.1993 of
plot No.5 of "Taj Nagari Phase-I" Scheme
as instances for determining market value
of the land acquired under the present
acquisition,
i.e.
land
acquisition
notification 30.01.1989, inasmuch as the
land of "Taj Nagari Phase-I" Scheme was
acquired in the year 1983 and more than
40% land thereof was left for parks and
roads etc. and huge investment was made
by the appellants to construct roads,
parks, electric line and drainage etc. Huge
staff was employed to supervise the work.
Larger part of the "Taj Nagari Phase-I"
Scheme developed by the appellants was
for residential purposes. Only few plots of
very prime location were earmarked for
commercial purposes, i.e. for hotels etc.
Therefore, auction sale of the aforesaid
developed commercial plot No.1 and 5 of
"Taj Nagari Phase-I" Scheme, cannot be
compared with the land of the present
acquisition whereby agricultural land was
acquired in the year 1989. That apart, as
per terms of the lease deed of the
aforesaid commercial plot Nos.1 and 5,
the auction amount was to be paid by the
purchaser in several instalments. Thus,
the reference court has committed a
manifest error of law and facts to treat the
lease
deeds
dated
11.06.1993
and
15.07.1993 as exemplars to determine the
market value of the land acquired under
the present acquisition dated 30.01.1989.

(vii) The judgment of the
reference court is contrary to the law
settled by Hon'ble Supreme court in
Chamanlal
Hargovind
Das
vs.
S.L.A.O., (1988) 3 SCC 751 : AIR 1988
SC 1652. The reference court completely
failed to follow the guiding principles of
1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs. Nafisa Begum & Ors.
167
Section 23 of the Act and the principles
laid down in Chamanlal Hargovind Das
(supra) for determination of market value.

(viii)
The
aforesaid
two
commercial plots leased on 11.06.1993
and 15.07.1993 of "Taj Nagari Phase-I"
Scheme are situate from the land acquired
under the present acquisition and the
claimants' land is situate far away from
the link road.

(ix) The market value means the
price which a willing purchaser would
pay to the willing seller for the property
having due regards to its existing
conditions on the relevant date excluding
any advantage which may accrue in future
in consequence of carrying out of the
developed scheme for which the property
is being acquired but the reference court
completely ignored the settled principles
of
law
and
awarded
exorbitant
compensation @ Rs.405/- per square
yard, which is wholly illegal and
arbitrary.

(x) The relevant sale deed
exemplars
including
the
sale
deed
exemplar of a land acquired under the
present acquisition, were filed in evidence
by the appellants but the reference court
committed a manifest error of law and
facts in not giving any weight to it and
rely on wholly irrelevant exemplars being
lease
deeds
dated
11.06.1993
and
15.07.1993 relating to all commercial
plots of "Taj Nagari Phase-I" Scheme.

(xi) The claimants-respondents
have completely failed to adduce any
evidence
to
establish
either
the
compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. is
insufficient
or
that
the
sale
deed
exemplars relied by the appellants herein
are not good exemplars. The respondents
could not demonstrate by any evidence
that the sale deed exemplars filed in
evidence by the appellants before the
reference court are not good exemplars.

(xii) The written submissions
filed by the appellants were ignored by
the reference court.

(xiii) The evidence of DW-1 in
L.A.R. No.47 of 2004 (subject matter of
First Appeal No.733 of 2017), was the
evidence of Lekhpal in which he clearly
stated on 21/22.12.2016 that the plot
No.473 was an agricultural land.

(xiv)
The
finding
of
the
reference court that the sale deed
exemplars filed in evidence by the
appellants do not reflect true market
value, is wholly baseless and without any
foundation or evidence. Therefore, the
finding is perverse.

(xv) The claimants' land at the
time
of
acquisition
was
used
for
agricultural purpose and it was totally
undeveloped.

(xvi) In any case, even if there
is an auction of undeveloped similar
agricultural land, it shall not furnish a safe
guide for determination of market value.

(xvi) Without prejudice to the
submissions made above, the auction
lease exemplars dated 11.06.1993 and
15.07.1993 and other auction exemplars
were subsequent to the dates of present
acquisition. Therefore, apart from the fact
that these auction/ leases were developed
land having no similarity to the acquired
land yet it has no relevance for the
purposes of the present acquisition
inasmuch as these auction/ lease deeds
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were of a date subsequent to the present
acquisition.

11. In support of his submissions, Sri
M.C. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate
relied upon the provisions of Section 23 of the
Act and the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Executive Engineer
Karnatka
Housing
Board
vs.
Land
Acquisition Officer and others, {(2011) 2
SCC 246 (Paras-1, 4, 5 and 6), Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority vs.
Gobinda Chandra Makal and another {(2011)
9 SCC 207 (Paras-31 to 36), Major General
Kapil Mehra vs. Union of India and another
{(2015) 2 SCC 262 (Paras-25, 26 and 27)},
Bhupal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana
{(2015) 5 SCC 801}, Maya Devi (dead)
through legal representatives and others vs.
State of Haryana and another {(2018) 2 SCC
474 (paras-4 and 5)}, Pyare Mohan Lal vs.
State of Jharkhand, {(2010) 10 SCC 693}, Lal
Chand vs. Union of India, {(2009) 15 SCC
769}, T.S. Ramchandra Shetty vs. Chairman
Karnataka Housing Board and others {(2009)
14 SCC 334}, Ranvir Singh and others vs.
Union of India {(2005)12 SCC 59}, Bangaru
Narshinga Rao, Naidu and others vs. Revenue
Divisional Officer Vizianagaram, {(1980) 1
SCC 575}, and the judgments of this Court in
Deo Karan and others vs. State of U.P. and
others 2017 (122) ALR 78 : 2017 (1) ADJ
389 and judgment dated 25.03.2019 in First
Appeal No.467 of 2006 (Ramphal and others
vs. State of U.P. and others).

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS:-

12. Learned counsel for the
claimants-respondents submits as under:-

(i) On the point of "relevant
date" all the judgments relied by the
appellants are per incuriam since it is
based on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in which a three Judges Bench
Judgment in Chandrabhan's case was not
noticed. The relevant date would be the
last date of publication of Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act or the date
of publication of notice by the Collector
which ever is later. To support his
submissions he referred to the provisions
of Section 23(1) read with Section 4(1) of
the Act and the judgmnts of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy and
others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
Hyderabad
Urban
Development
Authority, Hyderabad & others (1995) 2
SCC 305 (para 8); Chandrabhan and
others Vs. Ghaziabad Development
Authority and others (2015) 15 SCC
343 and Union of India and another Vs.
K.S. Subramanian (1976) 3 SCC 677
(para 12).

(ii) Paper No.101 C is the map
which establishes that on one side of the
road "Taj Nagari Phase-I Scheme" was
established and on the other side of the
road the land has been acquired under the
acquisition in question.

(iii) Lease deed exemplars filed
by the claimants have been found to be
good exemplar by the court below to
determine compensation of the acquired
land after giving due deduction. Since the
market value determined under the
impugned judgment reflects the true
market value of the acquired land as on
the date of acquisition i.e. 30.4.1989,
therefore, it can not be interfered with.

(iv) Evidence of Sri Vinod
Kumar Dubey (PW -1) dated 29.2.2016 as
pairokar of the claimants establishes not
only the building potentiality of the
acquired land but also market value as on
the date of acquisition. The acquired land
was near to the well developed land of
"Taj Nagari Phase-I Scheme". Near to the
1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs. Nafisa Begum & Ors.
169
acquired land there were large number of
Hotels, Hospitals and other commercial
establishments as have been stated by PW
1 in his evidence. Nothing adverse could
be brought out even in his cross
examination. The evidence of DW 1
(Raghuraj Singh - Lekhpal) also supports
the case of the claimants-respondents in
so far as the potentiality of the acquired
land is concerned.

(v) The evidence of PW -1
could not be rebutted by the appellants.
Therefore, the market value determined
by the court below can not be said to be
excessive rather it is inadequate and it
needs to be enhanced to Rs.700/- per sq.
yard by allowing the cross objection.

(vi) Judgments relied in support
of submissions are the judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand Vs.
Union of India and another (2009) 15
SCC 769 (paras 14 & 15), Land
Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue
Officer Vs. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530
(para 14), Major General Kapil Mehra
and others Vs. Union of India and another
(2015) 2 SCC 262 (paras 16,17 & 21) and
Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh and others
(2010) 11 SCC 175 (paras 10 & 22).

(vii)
The
claimantsrespondents
have
filed
sale
deed
exemplars being paper Nos.33C to 42C
in LAR No.968 of 2003, which disclose
selling rate ranging from Rs.155.84 to
Rs.300/- per square yard.

(viii) The court below has
rightly
disbelieved
the
sale
deed
exemplars
filed
by
the
appellants
inasmuch as it came to the conclusion that
it did not reflect the true market value.

(ix)
Auction
leases
were
relevant
exemplars
for
determining
market value of land under the present
acquisition inasmuch as the auction lease
deeds filed in evidence are the only
comparable
sale
transaction.
The
reference court has determined market
value on the basis of these exemplars after
making
reasonable
deductions.
The
relevant date of the present acquisition is
30.01.1989 and not 04.04.1989.

(x) The acquired land of the
claimants-respondents is a free-hold land
and, therefore, it shall fetch better market
value than the leased land. Under the
circumstances, the reference court should
have allowed higher compensation on the
basis of relied upon lease deed exemplars. In
this regard, the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Executive Engineer
Karnatka Housing Board vs. Land
Acquisition Officer and others, {(2011) 2
SCC 246 (para07)} and Major General
Kapil Mehra vs. Union of India and
another {(2015) 2 SCC 262}, are relied.

(xi) Auction sales are relevant
for fixing market value in view of the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue
Control Officer and Inspector and
others {(2009) 7 SCC 438}.

(xii) When there are several
exemplars with reference to similar land, it is
the general rule that the highest exemplar,
found to be bona fide transaction, has to be
considered and accepted. Reference in this
regard may be had to the judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish vs. State of
U.P. {(2009) 14 SCC 758 (Par-42)}, Anjana
Molu Desai vs. State of Goa, {(2010) 13
SCC 710 (para-13)}, Chindha Thakre Patil
vs. S.L.A.O. {(2011) 10 SCC 787 (para-15)},
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) vs. State
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Punjab, {(2012) 5 SCC 432} and Mohd.
Yusuf and others vs. State of Haryana and
others, AIR 2018 SC 2248.

(xiii) Since the claimants have
produced satisfactory evidence in the
form of lease deeds of plot Nos.1 and 5 to
show higher market value, therefore, the
sale deed exemplars relied by the
appellants to show a lessor market value
has to be treated as undervalued and
unreliable
evidence.
Therefore,
the
reference court has rightly not relied upon the
sale deed exemplars filed by the appellants
herein. Reference may be had to the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Haryana State Industry Development
Corporation vs. Pranshukh {(2010) 11
sCC 175 (paras-20 and 22)}, Udho Das vs.
State of Haryana, {(2010) 12 SCC 51
(para-21)}, Anjana Molu Desai vs. State of
Goa, {(2010) 13 SCC 710 (para-20)}.

(xiv) In the case of Udho Das
vs. State of Haryana, {(2010) 12 SCC 51
(paras-18 and 19)}, Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that if the compensation
proceeding continued over a period of
almost 20 years, then the potential of the
acquired land must be adjudged keeping
in view the development in the year split
over the period of 20 years.

(xv) Bona fide post notification
sales in the form of lease deed exemplars
have been rightly relied upon by the
reference court. In the circumstances that
there was no sharp or speculative rise in
the price of the land after the acquisition.
Reference in this regard may be had to the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mehta Ravindrarai Ajeet Rai vs. State
of Gujrat, {(1989) 4 SCC 250 (paras-4
and 5)}, State of U.P. vs. Major
Jitendra Kumar and others, AIR 1982
SC 876 (para-3), Chamanlal Hargovind
Das vs. S.L.A.O., {(1988) 3 SCC 751
(para-9)}, and Union of India vs.
Dyagala Devamma and others, AIR
2018 SC 3511.

(xvi) The claimants-respondents
have filed evidence in L.A. Case No.968
of 2003 (subject matter of First Appeal
No.212 of 2017), the following lease
deed/ sale deed exemplars with regard to
lease or sale of certain commercial plots
as under:

(A) Leases by open auction of
commercial plots of T.N. Phase-I
Scheme granted by
A.D.A.
SL.
No.
Pape
r No.
.
Date
of
bid/
lease
Name
of
bidder
/
lessee
Pl
ot
N
o.
T.
N.
P
ha
se
-I
Sc
he
m
e
Area
(in
squa
re
mete
rs)

Auct
ion
Amo
unt +
lease
rent
(in
Rs.)
Rate
(Rs.)

(per
squar
e
meter
)
1
102
C
(Ext.
14)/
71C
(Ext.
1)
11.06.
1993
JSG
Hotels
Pvt.
Ltd.
1

4000 44,0
4,00
0/-
1001/
-
2
131
C
(Ext.
36)/
72C
(Ext.
2)
15.07.
1993
Goyal
Intern
ationa
l
Hotels
and
Resort
s Ltd.
5 22,3
93.4
8
2,99,
92,3
73/-
1339/
-

(B)
Allotment
of
other
commercial plots of T.N. Phase-I
Scheme
1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs. Nafisa Begum & Ors.
171

SL
.
No
.
Paper
No.
Date
of
lease
Nam
e of
lesse
e
Plo
t
No
.
T.
N.
Ph
ase
-I
Sc
he
me
Area
(in
square
meter
s)
Amo
unt

(in
Rs.)

Rate
(Rs.)
(per
squar
e
meter
)
1
110C
(Ext.
20)/
71C
(Ext.
1)
17.02.
1992
Ome
ga
Hote
ls
Ltd.
2
4800 17,05
,440/-
355/-
2
119C
(Ext.
26)
30.08.
1988
M/s.
Unit
ech
Ltd.
3
30351
.1702
98,03
,428/-
323/-
(allot
ment
cance
lled)

3
125C
(Ext.
31)
29.04.
1993
M/s
East
India
Hote
ls
Ltd.
4
70670 2,28,
26,41
0/-
323/-
4
144C
(Ext.
45)/
148C
(Ext.
49)
08.02.
1995
Dr.
Ram
chan
d
Tiwa
ri
66 195.0
96
1,39,
854/-
716.8
4
5
183C
(Ext.
90)/8
3C
(Ext.
6)
25.08.
1992
Vish
nu
Kum
ar
Gupt
a
18 289.3
8
2,07,
543.3
3
717.2
0
6
135C
(Ext.
40)/7
2C
(Ext.
2)
15.07.
1993
Vish
nu
Kum
ar
Gupt
a
Ad
dit
on
al
are
a
adj
oin
ing
to
plo
t
No
.5
1134 19,89
,603
1754.
68

(C) Details of sale deeds filed
by claimants by List 32C dated
04.01.2010 regarding land sold by
farmers/
society
of
village
Basai
Mustaqil (not filed with Paper Book)
S
L
.
N
o.
Pa
per
No
.
Date
of
sale
deed
Name
of
seller/
purchaser
Kh
asra
Plot
No.
Are
a
(in
squ
are
yar
d)

C
on
si
de
rat
io
n
(i
n
Rs
.)
Rate
(in
Rs.)
(per
squa
re
yard
)
Remar
k
1 33
C
11.0
6.19
87
Prem
Singh and
others/
Phool
Singh
342 150 24
,7
50
/-
165/
-
-
2 34
C
10.0
1.19
86
Premwati/S
mt.
Bisna
Bai
353 80 14
,5
00
/-
181.
25
Agree
ment to
sale
3 35
C
19.0
1.19
87
LakhanSin
gh
S/oDharam
al/ Lakhan
Singh
S/oTej
Singh
295

100 18
,0
00
/-
180/
-
-
4 36
C
12.1
0.19
88
Darvesh
Sahkari
Avas
Samiti
Ltd./ Smt.
Rambeti
105
6

200

35
,0
00
/-
175/
-

-
5 37
C
21.0
3.19
86
Smt.
Rashmi
Beti/ Smt.
Rajan Devi
106
0 to
106
2
200 30
,0
00
/-
150/
-
-
6 38
C
25.0
6.19
87
Kailashi
Ram/.......
367 257
.22
2
35
,9
80
/-
139.
87
-
7 39
C
24.0
8.19
87
Munni
Devi/
Mufizuddi
n
-
100 25
,0
00
/-
250/
-
With
constru
ction
8 40
C
06.0
6.19
87
Thakur
Gulab
Singh
&
278 108 30
,0
00

277.
77
Situate
in M.P.
Pura
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dr. Basant
Lal /..........

/-
Nagla
mahad
ev
9 41
C
02.0
6.19
87
Smt.
Bhoori
Devi/
Ramji Lal
276 100 30
,0
00
/-
300/
-
-
1
0
42
C
02.0
6.19
87
Smt.
Har
Pyari/
Jamuna
Das
330 171 26
,6
50
/-
155.
84
-

DISCUSSION
AND
FINDINGS:

13. I have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties.

Question No. (a) Whether the
date 30.01.1989 when the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published in the official gazette or the
date 04.04.1989 when the public notice
was published by the SLAO, shall be the
relevant date for determination of
compensation of the market value of the
acquired land?

14. The relevant provisions for the
purposes
of
relevant
date
for
determination of market value of the land
acquired, are Section 23(1) and Section
4(1) of the Act, which are reproduced
below:

"23.Matters
to
be
considered
in
determining
compensation:-

(1) In determining the amount of
compensation to be awarded for land
acquired under this Act, the court shall
take into consideration-

first, the market-value of the
land at the date of the publication of the
notification under section 4, sub-section
(1);

secondly, the damage sustained
by the person interested, by reason of the
taking of any standing crops or trees
which may be on the land at the time of
the Collector's taking possession thereof;

thirdly, the damage (if any)
sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector's taking possession
taking possession of the land, by the
reason of severing such land from his
other land;

fourthly, the damage (if any)
sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector's taking possession
of the land, by reason of the acquisition
injuriously affecting his other property,
movable or immovable, in any other
manner, or his earnings;

fifthly,
if in consequence of the acquisition of the
land by the Collector, the person
interested is compelled to change his
residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to
such change; and

sixthly, the damage (if any)
bona fide resulting from diminution of the
profits of the land between the time of the
publication of the declaration under
section 6 and the time of the Collector's
taking possession of the land.

(1A) In addition to the market
value of the land, as above provided, the
Court shall in every case award an
amount calculated at the rate of twelve
per centum per annum on such market
value for the period commencing on and
from the date of the publication of the
notification under Section 4, sub-section
(1), in respect of such land to the date of
the award of the Collector or the date of
taking possession of land, whichever is
earlier.

Explanation.- In computing the
period referred to in this sub-section, any
period or periods during which the
1 All. Agra Development Authority Vs.