# Asha Ram &Anr v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 195
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-19
- **Case number:** FIRST APPEAL No.827 of 2000
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/asha-ram-anr-v-u-p-awas-evam-vikash-parishad-anr-44438
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Sri Kant, Sri Vivek Saran, Sri Madan
Mohan, S.C.

A.
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894-
Compensation - Fair compensation &
Parity of Compensation - Land owner
whose
land
is
acquired
for
public
purpose should get fair compensation -
Once a fair compensation is determined
judicially, all land owners whose land is
taken away by the same Notification are
entitled for same compensation and
benefit thereof should be given even to
those who could not approach the court -
Fairness requires that all those similarly
situated are treated similarly
(Para 36, 37)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Notification
under Section 4 of the Act issued on
26.06.1982-Section
6
notification
published on 28.02.1987 -Special Land
Acquisition
Officer
determined
the
compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per
square yard - Land owners reference under
Section 18 of the Act to the Reference
Court for enhancement of compensation-
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Reference Court enhanced the rate of
compensation from Rs.50/- per square
yard to Rs.120/- per square yard - Order
passed in land acquisition references was
challenged in appeal before High Court
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 - Orders of the Reference Court
were set aside by High Court. Held-
Appellants entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.297/- per square yard along
with other statutory benefits under the
law.
 (Para 38)
All the appeals allowed.

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,776 of 47,006. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39776 for what follows._

1 All. Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.
195
acquired on 30.01.1989 for 'Taj Nagari
Phase-II Scheme'. 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 by
the appellant for 'Taj Nagari Phase-II
Scheme' particularly when the relevant
sale deed exemplars were filed in
evidence. Both the question Nos.(b) and
(c) are answered accordingly.

48. For all the reasons afore-stated,
the
impugned
judgments
in
land
acquisition references as mentioned in
para-7 above, cannot be sustained and are
hereby set aside and all the First Appeals
filed
by
the
appellant
Agra
Development Authority are allowed.
The
cross-objections
filed
by
the
claimants are disposed of. Matters are
remitted back to the reference court to
decide the references afresh in accordance
with law in the light of the observations
made above, expeditiously preferably
within six months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this
order, without granting any unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties.
-----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

FIRST APPEAL No.827 of 2000
Alongwith

First Appeal Nos.-150 of 2001, 412 of 2001,
497 of 2001, 539 of 2001, 551 of 2001,552 of
2001, 1067 of 2001, 1072 of 2001, 1073 of
2001, 1074 of 2001, 1075 of 2001, 63 of
2002, 64 of 2002, 450 of 2002, 713 of 2002,
854 of 2002, 1000 of 2002, 1001 of 2002,
1003 of 2002, 1004 of 2002, 1005 of 2002,
1006 of 2002, 581 of 2003, 1017 of 2003, 296
of 2004, 324 of 2004, 750 of 2004, 751 of
2004, 752 of 2004, 898 of 2004, 940 of 2004,
959 of 2004, 368 of 2005, 369 of 2005, 370 of
2005, 371 of 2005, 482 of 2005, 483 of 2005,
906 of 2014, 907 of 2014, 929 of 2014, 621 of
2015, 695 of 2015, 696 of 2015, 697 of 2015,
698 of 2015, 702 of 2015 and 318 of 2016.
First Appeal Defective Nos.-414 of 2001, 439
of 2001, 460 of 2001 and 392 of 2002.

Asha Ram &Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ravi Kant, Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey,
Sri Surendra Tiwari, Sri B.K. Mishra, Sri
Manoj Kumar Pandey.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kant, Sri Vivek Saran, Sri Madan
Mohan, S.C.

A.
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894-
Compensation - Fair compensation &
Parity of Compensation - Land owner
whose
land
is
acquired
for
public
purpose should get fair compensation -
Once a fair compensation is determined
judicially, all land owners whose land is
taken away by the same Notification are
entitled for same compensation and
benefit thereof should be given even to
those who could not approach the court -
Fairness requires that all those similarly
situated are treated similarly
(Para 36, 37)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Notification
under Section 4 of the Act issued on
26.06.1982-Section
6
notification
published on 28.02.1987 -Special Land
Acquisition
Officer
determined
the
compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per
square yard - Land owners reference under
Section 18 of the Act to the Reference
Court for enhancement of compensation-
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Reference Court enhanced the rate of
compensation from Rs.50/- per square
yard to Rs.120/- per square yard - Order
passed in land acquisition references was
challenged in appeal before High Court
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 - Orders of the Reference Court
were set aside by High Court. Held-
Appellants entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.297/- per square yard along
with other statutory benefits under the
law.
 (Para 38)
All the appeals allowed.

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of U.P.
and others (2016) 6 SCC 308 followed

2. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Kashi
Ram and others, First Appeal No. 910 of 2000

3. First Appeal No. 459 of 1995, Noida v. Smt.
Charan Kaur, dated 22nd January, 2019

4. First Appeal No. 744 of 2007, Jagdish
Chandra v. NOIDA, 2008 (1) ADJ 253

5. Narendra and others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 1042910430 of 2017 followed

6. Jai Prakash (Dead) by L.Rs. and others v.
State of U.P. and another, Civil Appeal No.
16960 of 2017

7. First Appeal Defective No. 162 of 1987,
Karim and others v. State of U.P., order dated
03rd December, 2014

8. First Appeal No. 56 of 2005, U.P. Avas Evam
Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal and others,
dated 21st July, 2015

9. SLP (C) No. 4636 of 2016, U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad v. Jawahar Lal and others
distinguished (Para 33)

10.Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer
v.
Karigowda andothers (2010) 5 SCC 708
distinguished (Para 34)
11. Loveleen Kumar and others v. State of
Haryana and others (2018) 7 SCC 492(E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel J.)

1. These are fifty-three first appeals
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 18941. The appeals are arising out of
five separate judgments and orders of the
Reference Court passed in the respective
land acquisition references. First Appeal
Nos. 827 of 2000, 412 of 2001 and 552 of
2001 arise out of the judgment and order
dated 23rd May, 2000 of the Reference
Court. First Appeal Nos. 150 of 2001, 497
of 2001, 539 of 2001 and 854 of 2002
have been filed against the order of the
Reference Court dated 13th April, 1998.
First Appeal Nos. 898 of 2004, 906 of
2014, 907 of 2014, 929 of 2014, 318 of
2016 and First Appeal Defective No. 392
of 2002 have been filed against the order
of the Reference Court dated 02nd April,
2002; whereas First Appeal No. 551 of
2001 has been filed challenging the order
of the Reference Court dated 18th
February, 2000. Rest thirty-nine first
appeals arise out of the judgment and
order dated 29th March, 2001 passed in
the respective references by the Reference
Court. All the aforesaid first appeals arise
out
of
common
notifications
for
acquisition.

2. There are two sets of first appeals:
one in respect of acquisition for U.P. Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad and the other in respect
of
acquisition
for
the
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority.
Though
the
judgments of the Reference Court are
different, yet both the sets of appeals arise
out of common notification for the same
acquisition proceeding. The issues of facts
and law are similar in both the sets of
1 All. Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.
197
appeals, hence learned counsel for the parties
have agreed that both the sets of appeals may
be decided by a common judgment.

3. First we deal with the first set of
appeals led by First Appeal No. 827 of
2000.

4. Earlier a Division Bench of this
Court vide its judgment and order dated 28th
October, 2015 had affirmed the order of the
Court of Reference awarding compensation at
the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard to the land
owners. Dissatisfied with the compensation,
the land owners/ appellants preferred special
leave petitions, being S.L.P. (Civil) No.
28776-28777 of 2016, which were converted
to Civil Appeal No. 18634-18635 of 2017,
along with several other special leave
petitions. The Supreme Court vide its
judgment and order dated 09th December,
2017 has disposed of the civil appeals and set
aside the judgment and order of the Division
Bench of this Court on the ground that its
relevant judgment rendered in S.L.P. (C) Nos.
1506-1517 of 2016, Pradeep Kapoor (sic
Kumar) v. State of U.P., was not placed
before the Court and was not considered.
Accordingly, the matter has been remitted
back to this Court to reconsider afresh in the
light of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the said case. The order of the
Supreme Court reads as under:

"Leave granted.

Learned counsel for the parties
have filed certain documents along with
the Special Leave Petitions. The said
documents are taken on record, particularly
the decision of this Court in SLP (C) Nos.
1506-1517/2016, titled as Pradeep Kapoor
vs. State of U.P. These documents were not
on record before the High Court. They are
taken on record. These appeals are remitted
back to the High Court for deciding afresh. A
prayer is made for consideration of the
aforesaid documents. It is open to the parties
if they so desire to adduce additional
evidence, in that event, the High Court may
ask Reference Court to record additional
evidence and to record finding and then
High Court may decide the appeals afresh.

The judgment of the High Court
is set aside and the appeals are remitted
to the High Court for being decided
afresh in accordance with law.

The appeals are disposed of
accordingly."

5. Consequent upon the matter has
been heard by this Court.

6. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Manoj Kumar Pandey, Sri Akhilesh Kalra
and Sri Yash Tandon, learned counsel for
the appellants in the respective appeals,
and Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for
the respondent- Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, and learned Standing Counsel.

7. Learned counsel for the parties
are agreed that they do not want to adduce
any additional evidence, hence there is no
need to remit the matter back to the
Reference Court. It was stated that
learned counsel for the parties shall
confine their submissions only to the
materials which are on the record.

8. The Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad2 is a housing and
development board. One of the functions
of the Parishad is to frame and execute
housing and improvement schemes and
other projects. The Parishad framed
Scheme No. 3 for construction of the
residential colony in six villages, namely,
Makanpur,
Prahladgarhi,
Jhandapur,
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mohiuddinpur, Arthala and Sahibabad in
Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District
Ghaziabad. Total 1229.914 acres land was
proposed to be acquired. The details of
the proposed land for acquisition are as
follows:
Sl.
No.
Village
Area
(in
acres)
1
Arthla
358-93
2
Jhandapur
36-947
3
Prahladgarhi

437-379
4
Makanpur
75-6156
5
Mohiuddinpur
Kanavani
141-97
6
Shahibabad

107-05

9. At the instance of the Parishad the
State Government issued a notification
under Section 4 of the Act on 26th June,
1982 in respect of the aforesaid land. On
28th February, 1987 the notification under
Section 6 of the Act was published. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer3 passed
the award on 27th February, 1989 and
determined the compensation of the land
at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard. The
land
owners
made
applications
for
reference under Section 18 of the Act to
the Reference Court for enhancement of
the compensation. Five separate set of
references were made. The lead case in
the present appeals arise out of LAR No.
56 of 1995 (Asha Ram and others v. State
of U.P.), which was connected with LAR
No. 205 of 1995, LAR No. 209 of 1995
and LAR No. 236 of 1992. They were
referred to the VIIIth Additional District
Judge, Ghaziabad. These references were
in
respect
of
Villages
Jhandapur,
Shahibabad, Arthala, Mohiuddinpur and
Prahladgarhi. The first set of references
i.e. LAR No. 56 of 1995 and three others
were decided by the VIIIth Additional
District
Judge,
Ghaziabad
vide
its
judgment and order dated 23rd May,
2000, thereby enhancing the rate of
compensation from Rs.50/- per square
yard to Rs.120/- per square yard.

10. Dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 23rd May, 2000 passed
by the Reference Court, the appellants-
Asha Ram and others preferred the first
appeals under Section 54 of the Act, being
First Appeal Nos. 827 of 2000, 412 of
2001 and 552 of 2001. The other first
appeals of first set have also been filed
arising out of the common order of the
SLAO.

11. The facts of the second set of
appeals are that initially the land in
question was acquired by the notification
dated 26th June, 1982 at the instance of
the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad under Section 28 of the Uttar
Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
Adhiniyam (for short, the "Parishad
Adhiniyam") for acquisition of the 2127
acres
of
land
situated
in
Village
Makanpur, Prahlad Garhi, Jhandapur,
Moinuddinpur, Arthala, etc.

12. Meanwhile the State Government
took a decision to give 731 acres of land to
the Ghaziabad Development Authority out
of the proposed land which was notified
under Section 4 of the Act read with under
Section 28 of the Parishad Adhiniyam. 731
acres of land was situated in revenue
Villages
Makanpur,
Prahlad
Garhi,
Hasanpur and Owapur. In this regard a
Government order was issued on 31st July,
1984. It was agreed between the parties that
both the parties shall carry out trunk
1 All. Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.
199
structural services jointly and both the
authorities shall work after the mutual
discussion. It was also resolved that
whatever compensation shall be decided for
the acquisition of the land, the same shall be
borne by the Parishad and the Development
Authority of their respective area. The
notification under Section 32 of the
Parishad Adhiniyam relatable to Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on
28th February, 1987. A separate notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued
seeking to acquire a huge tract of land
including 710 acres of land, which was
initially subject matter of acquisition made
by the Parishad. On 24th February, 1988 the
notification under Section 6(1) of the Act
was issued.

13. It is pertinent to mention that the
notification under Section 6 of the Act in
respect of the land acquired for the
Parishad (under Section 32 of the
Parishad Adhiniyam) was issued on 28th
February, 1987 and on the same day a
separate notification under Section 4 of
the Act was published for the Ghaziabad
Development Authority in respect of 731
acres of land, which was earlier the
subject matter of acquisition by the
Parishad. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer has passed an award on 27th
February, 1989 determining the market
value at the rate of Rs.50/- per square
yard. The tenure holders- appellants filed
applications under Section 18 of the Act
for reference. The Reference Court vide
its judgment dated 29th March, 2001
enhanced the compensation from Rs.50/-
to Rs.120/- per square yard. Dissatisfied
with the judgment and order of the
Reference Court dated 29th March, 2001,
thirty-nine first appeals, as have been
mentioned in the earlier part of this
judgment, have been preferred.

14. In respect of the land, which was
acquired for the Parishad, the SLAO vide
his order dated 27th February, 1989 has
passed the award wherein the same
compensation i.e. Rs.50/- per square yard
was determined. The land loosers in the
said case made an application under
Section 18 of the Act for reference. The
Reference Court vide its judgment and
order dated 23rd May, 2000 enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per
square yard.

15. Aggrieved by the said reference
order, the land loosers in that case filed a
first appeal, being First Appeal No. 827 of
2000, which was dismissed by a Division
Bench on 28th October, 2015. The
Division Bench upheld the order of the
Reference Court and affirmed the rate of
compensation of Rs.120/- per square yard.

16. The tenure holders against the
order of the Division Bench dated 28th
October, 2015 preferred special leave
petitions being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2877628777 of 2016, which were converted to
Civil Appeal No. 18634-18635 of 2017.
The Supreme Court vide order dated 09th
December, 2017, as quoted above, has
disposed of the said civil appeals along
with the connected appeals and has
remanded the matter back to this Court to
decide the matter afresh in the light of the
judgment of Pradeep Kumar v. State of
U.P., S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1506-1517 of 2016.

17. A Division Bench of this Court
vide an order dated 28th October, 2015
dismissed First Appeal No. 827 of 2000,
Asha Ram and another v. U.P. Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad, holding that the
compensation awarded by the Reference
Court at the rate of Rs.120/- per square
yard is a fair compensation and no
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interference was called for in the order of
the Reference Court.

18. Aggrieved by the order of the
Division Bench, special leave petitions, as
mentioned above, were preferred by the
claimants and the order of the Division
Bench dated 28th October, 2015 has been
set aside and the matter has been remitted
to this Court to decide afresh in the light
of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra).

19. Arising out of the same
acquisition proceeding and the award
passed by the SLAO, three
other
judgments dated 13th April, 1998, 18th
February, 2000 and 02nd April, 2002
have been passed by the Reference Court
in
the
respective
land
acquisition
references of the tenure holders. Against
these three judgments of the Reference
Court, 11 first appeals, as have been
mentioned above, have been filed by the
farmers which are connected in this batch
of first appeals.

20. All the six villages, where the land
has been acquired, situate in Tehsil Dadri,
District Ghaziabad. In the past the State
Government has acquired a large tract of
land for the industrial development for the
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority and the Ghaziabad Development
Authority from 1982 onwards by different
notifications under the Land Acquisition Act
and a series of litigation ensued by the land
loosers, whose all/ most of the holdings have
been taken by the State for the planned
development activities. The situation of these
villages have been mentioned by the SLAO
and the Reference Court in its order. The
SLAO after inspection of the area of the land
has found that the land in question situates
towards the south of Delhi-Ghaziabad Link
Road, in the east side there is well developed
residential colonies at Mohan Nagar and the
Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the
west, Vaishali and Kaushambi schemes
developed by the Ghaziabad Development
Authority are situated and the villages are
only at a distance of 14 kms. from the limits
of Delhi. In their reference applications also,
the appellants-claimants have mentioned that
the entire area is well developed. It is near
the National Highway-24 and it is well
connected with the railways and bus services
and the area is surrounded by several well
developed residential colonies and the
residential area. They have claimed that the
market value of the land was Rs.8000/- per
square yard and it has potential for residential
and commercial use.

21. Learned counsel for the
appellants have drawn our attention to
some of the judgments of this Court in
respect of acquisition of the land of same
village Makanpur and the adjoining
villages, where market value of the land
has been determined at Rs.297/- per
square yard. In all those cases the
notifications have been made within a
span of 2-6 years and recently in all those
cases, irrespective of the dates of
notifications, the compensation has been
awarded at the same rate i.e. Rs.297/- per
square yard.

22. In the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority v. Kashi Ram
and others, First Appeal No. 910 of
2000, and other connected appeals, the
land was acquired in the same village
Makanpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri,
District Ghaziabad for the planned
development
by
the
Ghaziabad
Development Authority. In the said case,
the notification under Section 4 of the Act
was issued on 12th September, 1986,
1 All. Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.
201
which was published in the Gazette on
28th February, 1987 and the notification
under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued
on 24th February, 1988. The possession
of the land was taken by the State on 14th
June, 1988 and 29th June, 1988. The
SLAO passed the award and granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per
square yard. The matter was referred to
the Reference Court under Section 18 of
the Act. The Reference Court enhanced
the rate of compensation from Rs.50/- per
square yard to Rs.90/- per square yard.
Aggrieved by the order of the Reference
Court,
the
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority filed 60 appeals and the land
owners had also filed the appeals for
enhancement
of
compensation
and
lowering the deductions from 33% made
towards development cost. The Division
Bench by a common judgment decided
the batch of first appeals vide judgment
and order dated 13th November, 2014.
The Court dismissed the appeals filed by
the Ghaziabad Development Authority
and the appeals of the claimants/ land
owners for enhancement of compensation
were allowed. This Court found that the
claimants/ land owners shall be entitled
for compensation at the rate of Rs.297/-
per square yard. Aggrieved by the
judgment of the Division Bench dated
13th November, 2014 passed in First
Appeal No. 910 of 2000 the Ghaziabad
Development Authority preferred Petition
for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
5815 of 2015, Ghaziabad Development
Authority v. Kashi Ram and others,
and other
connected special leave
petitions, which were dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 05th May, 2015 with
the following order:

"We find no reason to interfere
in these matters by exercising our powers
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Consequently the Special Leave Petitions
stand dismissed."

23. The Ghaziabad Development
Authority filed review applications which
were dismissed by the Supreme Court on
06th October, 2015. The curative petitions
filed by the Ghaziabad Development
Authority also came to be dismissed on
15th March, 2016.

24. It was urged by learned counsel
for the appellants that in the case of
Ghaziabad Development Authority v.
Kashi Ram (supra) the land of the same
village Makanpur was acquired and its
notification was also around the same
period when the land in the present
appeals was acquired. Hence, it was urged
that the appellants are also entitled for the
same compensation.

25. Our attention has been drawn to
following cases, wherein the State has
acquired the land for the planned
development in and around the same
years and in all those cases the
compensation
has
been
uniformly
awarded at the rate of Rs.297/- per square
yard. It would be convenient to give the
details of those cases in a tabular form:
Sl.N
o.
Villag
e
Dat
es
of
noti
fica
tion
u/s
4
and
6
of
the
Act
No.
and
nam
e of
the
lead
first
appe
al
Com
pens
ation
awar
ded
by
SLA
O
per
squa
re
yard
(in
Rs.)
Com
pensati
on
give
n by
Refe
renc
e
Cour
t per
squa
re
yard
(in
Rs.)
Com
pens
ation
awar
ded
by
High
Cour
t per
squa
re
yard
(in
Rs.)
Comp
ensation
award
ed by
the
Supre
me
Court
per
squar
e yard
(in
Rs.)
1
Chaler
a
30.
10.
First
App
43.6
4
148.
75
297/- ....
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bange
r
198
7
15.
12.
198
9
eal
No.
744
of
2001
,
Jagdi
sh
Chan
dra
&Or
s. v.
NOI
DA
&An
r.
2
Maka
npur
12.
09.
198
6
24.
02.
198
8
First
App
eal
No.
910
of
2000
,
GD
A v.
Kash
i
Ram
&Or
s.

50/- 90/-

297/- SLP
dismi
ssed.
Order
of
High
Court
affirm
ed.
3
Maka
npur
15.
03.
198
8
-

First
App
eal
No.
522
of
2009
,
Prad
eep
Kum
ar v.
State
of
U.P
72/- 135/- 297/- Civil
Appe
al No.
15061517
of
2017
dismi
ssed
on
11.9.1
7.
Naren
dra
Kuma
r
v.
State.
4
Maka
npur
12.
09.
198
6
24.
02.
198
8
First
App
eal
No.
....
Nare
ndra
Kum
ar
50/- 90/- 115/- 297/-
5
Maka
16.
First 90/- 160/- 160/- Rs.29
npur
08.
198
8
22.
02.
198
9
App
eal
No.
41 of
2005
,
Ram
eshw
ar
Daya
l
v.
State
of
U.P.
&Or
s.
7/-
Civil
Appe
al No.
16960
-17,
arisin
g out
of
SLP
No.
13802
/16,
Jai
Praka
sh
(dead
)
by
L.Rs.
And
others
v.
State
of
U.P.
6
Bhang
el
Begu
mpur,
Nagla
Chara
ndas,
Geha
Tilpat
abad
Tehsil
Dadri
27.
02.
198
8
15.
12.
198
9
First
App
eal
No.
1056
of
1999
,
Ragh
uraj
Sing
h
&Or
s. v.
State
of
U.P.
&Or
s.

35.0
7

93.7
5
297/- ... ..

7
Adjoi
ning
Villag
e
of
Bhang
el
Begu
mpur,
Nagla
Chara
ndas,
Geha
Tilpat
abad
Tehsil
Dadri
05.
01.
198
2 -
First
App
eal
No.
564
of
1997
,
Khaj
an
Sing
h
and
other
s v.
State
...... ...... 297/- Civil
Appe
al No.
6775
of
2013,
Harbh
ajan
Kuma
r and
others
v.
Colle
ctor,
LA.
While
1 All. Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.
203

of
U.P.,
deci
ded
on
11.1
0.20
12
decidi
ng
simila
r civil
appea
l
exten
ded
the
benefi
t
of
enhan
ced
comp
ensati
on @
Rs.29
7/-

26. Our attention has also been
drawn to an order passed by this Court in
First Appeal No. 459 of 1995, Noida v.
Smt. Charan Kaur, dated 22nd January,
2019, whereby a review application has
been allowed by a Division Bench of this
Court, in which one of us (P.K.S. Baghel,
J.) was a member. In the said case in
respect of the same village Makanpur a
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
was made on 15th March, 1998 proposing
to acquire 463.959 acres of land. The
SLAO awarded compensation at the rate
of Rs.72/- per square yard. The Reference
Court has enhanced it to Rs.106/- per
square yard. The land owners preferred
First Appeal No. 459 of 1995 and 48
other first appeals. The Division Bench of
this Court decided all the said first
appeals by a common judgment and order
dated 30th October, 2014 setting aside the
judgment dated 24th April, 1993 and
remanded
the
matter
back
to
the
Reference Court for deciding afresh in the
light of the observations made in the
judgment. In the said case, review
application was filed on the ground that a
Division Bench of this Court in First
Appeal No. 744 of 2007, Jagdish
Chandra v. NOIDA, reported in 2008
(1) ADJ 253, wherein the land of the
same area was acquired, has enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per
square yard. It was argued on behalf of
the review applicant that the said
judgment was not brought to the notice of
this Court. The review application was
allowed on the ground of similar facts.

27. It is pertinent to mention that
against the same reference order another
first appeal, being First Appeal No. 737 of
1995, was decided by this Court on 13th
November, 2015 and this Court has
remitted the matter back to the Reference
Court to decide it afresh. The order of the
Division Bench dated 13th November,
2015 was challenged before the Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 25237-48 of 2015, wherein leave was
granted and the special leave petitions
were converted to Civil Appeal No.
1506-17 of 2016 (Pradeep Kumar and
others v. State of U.P. and others). The
Supreme Court vide its order dated 16th
February, 2016, reported in (2016) 6
SCC 308 (Pradeep Kumar and others
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another),
allowed the civil appeals and set aside the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 13th November, 2015 and
remanded the matter back to this Court to
decide afresh. While remanding the
matter back to this Court, the Supreme
Court has made following observations:

"2. In our opinion certain
aspects with regard to the valuation and
location of the land have not been
properly discussed and therefore, the
matters require reconsideration by the
High Court. For instance, we may say
that the Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been
issued on 10-3-1988. The appellants have
been awarded compensation @ Rs.135
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
per square yard for the land belonging to
them, whereas in respect of certain land,
said to be similarly situated, which had
been
acquired
in
the
year
1986,
compensation of Rs.297 per square yard
had been awarded.

3. We are of the view that the
aforestated
aspects
have
not
been
clarified because normally the price of the
land goes on increasing, but the reason as
to why lesser amount has been given to
the appellants, has not been properly
explained in the impugned judgment4."

28. Pursuant thereto, a Division
Bench of this Court allowed the first
appeal vide order dated 21st April, 2016,
whereby
this
Court
enhanced
the
compensation in the light of the earlier
orders passed in respect of similarly
situated land at the rate of Rs.297/- per
square yard for the same village. The
relevant part of the order of the Division
Bench dated 21st April, 2016 reads as
under:

"28. We are definitely of the
opinion that similarly situated farmers,
whose land holding in the same village,
has been acquired under subsequent
notifications, would be entitled to the
benefit of the rate which had been
determined by the High Court in respect
of earlier notification. The land of the
farmers acquired under the subsequent
notification similarly situate, cannot be
any less valuable than the one determined
by the Court in respect of earlier
Notification, except for special reasons.

*** *** ***

41. We are also of the opinion
that in view of the fact that the land of the
appellants was acquired in 1988, and
because the statute does not empower the
authorities or reference court to deduct
any amount from the market value
determined
specifically
when
no
development of the land had been shown
to have taken place nor any amount has
been spent for the same, there should be
no deduction from the rate so determined.
We draw support from the judgement in
the case of Jagdish Chandra and others
vs. New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority and another, 2008(1) ADJ 253
and Ganeshi Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2008 (5) ADJ 306.

42. The appeals of the tenure
holders are allowed. The orders of the
Reference Court dated 24.3.1993 and
dated 30.4.1993 are set aside. It is held
that tenure holders shall be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per
square yard."

29. Regard may be had to the fact
that in the case of Narendra and others
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
Civil Appeal Nos. 10429-10430 of 2017,
the Supreme Court has quoted with
approval the judgment of this Court in
Pradeep Kumar (supra) in the following
terms:

"14) This Court in Civil Appeal
No. 1506-1517 of 2016 titled Pardeep
Kumar etc. etc. v. NOIDA which pertains
to subsequent acquisition proceeding in
the same village Makanpur, but falling
under NOIDA, had on 16th February,
2016 set aside the order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
and remanded the matter back to the High
Court for reconsideration in view of the
judgments passed by the coordinate
benches of the same High Court in Kashi
Ram's case as well as other cases. The
High Court, after the remand vide its
1 All. Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.
205
judgment dated 11th April, 2016 in First
Appeal No. 522 of 2009 titled, Pardeep
Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. &Anr.
awarded
the
same
enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per
sq. Yard even in the same case also. The
High
Court
while
awarding
the
compensation at the same rate held:

"27. Therefore, one of the
questions which needs to be examined by
us is, can the appellants be denied the
same rate of compensation only because
the filed by them before the reference
court did not disclose the rate which they
seek now in terms of the judgment of the
High Court in the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority (supra). Kanshi
Ram case.

 xxx xxx xxx

29. It is settled law that the
compensation under the Act, 1894 had to
be fair and just. Fairness requires that all
those similarly situated are treated
similarly. Technicalities qua rate as per
exemplars filed by poor farmers, who are
illiterate, has to be given only such
importance as may not defeat their right
of fair and just compensation qua
compulsory acquisition of land holdings.

30.
The
determination
of
acquisition at the rate of Rs.297/- per
square yard in the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority (supra) Kashi
Ram case has therefore, to be taken as the
fair rate determined for the land situated
in the village Makanpur with regard to
the notification issued on 12th September,
1986 as well as under Notification dated
15th March, 1988."

30. After the judgment of Narendra
(supra) in the case of Jai Prakash
(Dead) by L.Rs. and others v. State of
U.P. and another, Civil Appeal No.
16960 of 2017, the Supreme Court on the
basis of parity has awarded the same
compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard.
In the said case earlier the appellants were
awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.160/- per square yard. The land in this
case also is situated in Village Makanpur,
District Ghaziabad. The relevant part of
the order of the Supreme Court in Jai
Prakash (supra) reads as under:

"We have considered the matter
and we find that the respondent-State has
not averred and established that the two
lands i.e. the land in Narendra's case
(supra) and the land in the instant case,
are different and diverse so as to deny
parity of compensation to the appellants.

We find that there is nothing on
record which requires that two lands
should be treated differently. It is a fact
that lands in both cases cited above, are
situated on the same side of the road as is
apparent from the Map on record. We,
therefore, have no hesitation in granting
the same rate of compensation to the
present appellants i.e. Rs.297/- per square
yard, as was awarded in Narendra's case
(supra).

Hence, the appeal is allowed
and the orders passed by the courts below
are set aside.

We further direct that the
compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per
square yard be paid to the appellants by
the respondents within a period of six
months from today."

31. Similarly, in First Appeal
Defective No. 162 of 1987, Karim and
others v. State of U.P., vide order dated
03rd December, 2014 this Court has
enhanced the compensation at the rate of
Rs.297/- per square yard.
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. Learned counsel for the Parishad-
respondent has placed reliance on a
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal No. 56 of 2005, U.P. Avas
Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal
and others, dated 21st July, 2015, wherein
this
Court
has
determined
the
compensation in respect of the land of the
same villages which were acquired for the
Parishad. In the said case the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act read with
Section 28 of the Parishad Adhiniyam was
published on 26th June, 1982. The SLAO
passed the award at the rate of Rs. 50/- per
square yard and after making 25%
deduction it was determined at the rate of
Rs.37.50 per square yard. The Reference
Court enhanced the compensation at the
rate of Rs.160/- per square yard and
thereafter it applied 25% deduction and
ultimately the market rate was found to be
at Rs.120/- per square yard. Before the
Division Bench the only submission made
was in respect of deduction of 25%. It was
submitted that the said deduction was not
justified. However, this Court did not
accept the said submission and dismissed
the first appeal. Against the said order a
special leave petition, being SLP (C) No.
4636 of 2016, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad v. Jawahar Lal and others, was
preferred, which was dismissed along with
other special leave petitions by the
Supreme Court by the following order
dated 28th March, 2016:

"Heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the relevant
material.

Exemption from filing certified
copy of the impugned judgment and O.T.
is granted.

We do not find any legal and
valid ground for interference. The Special
Leave Petitions are dismissed."

33. We have perused the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court. In the
said case, no submission was raised
seeking parity of compensation at the rate
of Rs.297/- per square yard as in the case
of similarly situated land. The only
submission raised before the Division
Bench was in respect of the deduction of
25%. In view of the said distinguishing
fact, the said judgment has no application
in the facts of the present case.

34. In the case of SpecialLand
Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and
others5 the Supreme Court has laid down
the law in respect of capitalisation of
yield method. In the said case the land
was being used exclusively by the owners
for growing mulberry crops and it was
used for commercial purposes. The
Supreme Court has held that it is settled
principle of law that onus to prove
entitlement
to
receive
higher
compensation is upon the claimants. We
have perused the said judgment. In the
said case, the claimants have failed to
produce on record the sale instances and
they have also not produced on record any
specific
evidence
to
justify
the
compensation awarded to them by the
Reference Court. The Court has noticed
"in fact, there is hardly any evidence,
much
less
cogent
and
impeccable
evidence to support increase on the basis
of net income capitalization method.". In
our view, the said case has no application
in the present facts and circumstances.

35. In Loveleen Kumar and others
v. State of Haryana and others6 the
Supreme
Court
observed
that
the
Reference Court and the High Court did
not consider the sale-deeds produced on
behalf of the State. Hence, the Court was
of the view that the matter needs
1 All. Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.
207
reconsideration by the High Court as the
evidence was not properly appreciated
and the matter was remitted to the High
Court.

36. It is pertinent to mention that the
Supreme Court in Narendra (supra) has
approved the judgment of Pradeep
Kumar (supra) and has considered
elaborately the provision of Section 28-A
of the Act. Section 28-A of the Act reads
as under:

"28A Re-determination of the
amount of compensation on the basis of
the award of the Court.-(1) Where in an
award under this Part, the Court allows
to
the
applicant
any
amount
of
compensation in excess of the amount
awarded by the Collector under section
11, the persons interested in all the other
land covered by the same notification
under section 4, sub-section (1) and who
are also aggrieved by the award of the
Collector may, notwithstanding that they
had not made an application to the
Collector under section 18, by written
application to the Collector within three
months from the date of the award of the
Court require that the amount of
compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of
compensation awarded by the Court:

Provided that in computing the
period of three months within which an
application to the Collector shall be made
under this sub-section, the day on which
the award was pronounced and the time
requisite for obtaining a copy of the
award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an
application
under
sub-section
(1),
conduct an inquiry after giving notice to
all the persons interested and giving them
a reasonable opportunity of being heard,
and make an award determining the
amount of compensation payable to the
applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the
award under sub-section (2) may, by
written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the
Court and the provisions of sections 18 to
28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such
reference as they apply to a reference
under section 18."

The
Supreme
Court
in
Narendra (supra) has observed as under:

"
7) The purpose and objective
behind the aforesaid provision is salutary
in nature. It is kept in mind that those
land owners who are agriculturist in most
of the cases, and whose land is acquired
for public purpose should get fair
compensation. Once a particular rate of
compensation is judicially determined,
which becomes a fair compensation,
benefit thereof is to be given even to those
who could not approach the court. It is
with this aim the aforesaid provision is
incorporated by the Legislature.