# D.M. Jaunpur & Ors v. Majid and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 898
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-23
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 129 of 1988
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/d-m-jaunpur-ors-v-majid-and-ors-42642
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act-Section
18-
Reference
against-award
made
by
S.L.O.-reference court enhanced amount
of compensation relying upon photocopy
of sale deed-never proved-enhancement
patently illegal-S.L.O. is not a courtsimply
giving
offer-inadequacy
of
compensation can be proved only by
evidence-order
passed
by
reference
court not sustainable-quashed.

Held: Para-11
The impugned judgment and order of the
reference court does not point out any
error of law in the award of the SLAO or
as to how the compensation awarded is
on the lower side. The reference court
has simply based its award on the sale
deed of Devi Prasad. The said sale deed
was never produced in evidence before
it. Thus, without adducing any evidence
to prove that the compensation offered
is inadequate or that it should be on
higher
side,
the
reference
court
manifestly erred in law in awarding
compensation on the basis of the sale
deed of Devi Prasad which was not part
of the record.

Case Law discussed:
AIR
1988
SC
1652
2 All] D.M. Jaunpur & Ors. Vs. Majid and Ors.
899

## Text

898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
'involving in the case' there must be first a
foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the
question should emerge from the sustainable
findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and
it must be necessary to decide that question of
law for a just and proper decision of the case.
It will, therefore, depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case, whether a
question of law is a substantial one or not; the
paramount overall consideration being the
need for striking a judicious balance between
the indispensable obligation to do justice at all
stages and impelling necessity of avoiding
prolongation in the life of any lis."

16. In the case of Union of India
Vs. Ibrahim & Another in Civil Appeal
No.1374 of 2008, decided on July 17,
2012, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held :

"There may be exception circumstances
where the High Court is compelled to
interfere, notwithstanding the limitation
imposed by the wording of Section 100
CPC. It may be necessary to do so for the
reason that after all the purpose of the
establishment of courts of justice is to render
justice between the parties, though the High
Court is bound to act with circumspection
while exercising such jurisdiction. In second
appeal the court frames the substantial
question of law at the time of admission of
the appeal and the Court is required to
answer all the said questions unless the
appeal is finally decided on one or two of
those questions or the court comes to the
conclusion that the question(s) framed could
not be the substantial question(s) of law.
There is no prohibition in law to frame the
additional substantial question of law if the
need so arises at the time of the final hearing
of the appeal."

17. In view of the law as discussed
above, the second appeal is dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL- SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

First Appeal No. 129 of 1988

D.M. Jaunpur & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Majid and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.C., Sri S.C. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Sinha, Sri K.P. Agarwal
Sri R.S. Pandey, Sri Rajesh Kesarwani

Land
Acquisition
Act-Section
18-
Reference
against-award
made
by
S.L.O.-reference court enhanced amount
of compensation relying upon photocopy
of sale deed-never proved-enhancement
patently illegal-S.L.O. is not a courtsimply
giving
offer-inadequacy
of
compensation can be proved only by
evidence-order
passed
by
reference
court not sustainable-quashed.

Held: Para-11
The impugned judgment and order of the
reference court does not point out any
error of law in the award of the SLAO or
as to how the compensation awarded is
on the lower side. The reference court
has simply based its award on the sale
deed of Devi Prasad. The said sale deed
was never produced in evidence before
it. Thus, without adducing any evidence
to prove that the compensation offered
is inadequate or that it should be on
higher
side,
the
reference
court
manifestly erred in law in awarding
compensation on the basis of the sale
deed of Devi Prasad which was not part
of the record.

Case Law discussed:
AIR
1988
SC
1652
2 All] D.M. Jaunpur & Ors. Vs. Majid and Ors.
899
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard learned Standing counsel
appearing for appellants no. 1 and 2. and
Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel
appeared for appellant no. 3.

2. No one has appeared for the
respondents despite case being called
out twice.

3. The notification dated 11.5.1979
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
was issued to acquire the land in question
which involved plot no. 276 and 442 having
area of 0.42 acres situate in VillageMuradganj, Pargana-Haveli, District-Jaunpur.

4. The SLAO made an award under
Section 11 on 29.5.1982. The SLAO for
the entire area of 14.625 acres of land
awarded a total of Rs. 2,97,507.53. On
reference being preferred by the claimant
respondent under Section 18 of the Act
the III Additional District Judge by the
impugned judgment and order dated 11th
November 1987 has directed for payment
of compensation as per the sale deed of
Devi Prasad which has been referred to at
item no. 15 in the award of the SLAO and
for
payment
of
statutory
benefits
admissible under the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award of
the Additional District Judge, this appeal
under Section 54 of the Act has been
preferred by the Collector/District Magistrate
and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (in
short
SLAO).
Later,
U.P.
Power
Transmission Corporation was impleaded as
appellant no. 3 as the land was acquired for
its benefit.

6. The impugned judgment, order
and award reveals that it has been passed
on the basis of the sale deed by which
Devi Prasad had purchased 6 decimal of
land for a sum of Rs. 7,251/-. The date of
the sale deed and other details are not
mentioned in the impugned judgment.
The reference court has not even cared to
calculate the market rate as per the above
sale deed and has directed for payment of
compensation on its basis.

7. I have gone through the paper
book and the entire record of the
reference court.The said sale deed is not
part of the evidence.

8. It has long been settled by the
Supreme
Court
in
Chimman
Lal
Hargovinddas
Vs.
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer AIR 1988 SC 1652 that
the award of the SLAO is simply an offer and
is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial
court. The material relied upon by the SLAO
while making the award can not be utilized by
the reference court unless it is produced in
evidence and is proved in accordance with
law. In other words, the reference is like an
original proceeding wherein market value of
the acquired land is required to be determined
on the basis of the evidence/material produced
before the Court. The claimant is in a position
of a plaintiff and the burden is upon him to
show that the offer made by the SLAO is
inadequate and that he is entitle to higher
compensation.

9. Once the burden to establish that
the award of the SLAO is incorrect and
that the compensation offered to him
ought to be higher, it is the duty of the
claimant to adduce relevant evidence to
prove the market value at which he is
entitle to receive compensation.

10. It has repeatedly been held by
the Supreme Court that the best evidence
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
for determining the market value of any
property is the exemplar sale deeds in respect
the very property and if no suitable sale deed
proximate in time to the acquisition of the
land is available, then the Court may fall
back upon the exemplar sale deed of the land
adjacent to the acquired land or of the nearby
villages.

11. The impugned judgment and order
of the reference court does not point out any
error of law in the award of the SLAO or as to
how the compensation awarded is on the
lower side. The reference court has simply
based its award on the sale deed of Devi
Prasad. The said sale deed was never
produced in evidence before it. Thus, without
adducing any evidence to prove that the
compensation offered is inadequate or that it
should be on higher side, the reference court
manifestly erred in law in awarding
compensation on the basis of the sale deed of
Devi Prasad which was not part of the record.

12. The reference court has not
assigned any other reason and has not
followed any other evidence in awarding
compensation according to the aforesaid
sale deed.

13. It may be important to note that
even photostat copies of sale deed are
ordinarily inadmissible in evidence and
can not form the basis for enhancement of
compensation. Therefore, the complete
absence of the sale deed from the record
is fatal and the reference court fell in
grave error in referring to it and basing its
judgment upon it.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the impugned, judgment order
and award dated 11th November 1987 passed
by the III Additional District Judge, Jaunpur
in Land Acquisition Case No. 167 of 1985
(Majid and another Vs. Collector, Jaunpur and
another) is set aside.

15. Appeal is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAAED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Rent Control No. 135 of 2010

Ram Autar & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Additional Distt. Judge & Ors....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nishant Srivastava, Sri Aftab Alam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972-Section 21(i)-
Release application of land lord-rejected by
both courts below-on ground-legal heir of
land lord are govt. servant-posted out of
city-where as even after death of tenant-his
wife and children residing-held-approach of
both the courts below wholly perverse.

Held: Para-6
Their need to the disputed premises
cannot be denied by mere posting
outside
the
home
town.
Learned
Prescribed Authority has not discussed
or reached to the conclusions as to
when each applicant could attain the
age of superannuation and rejected the
personal requirement on the ground of
assessment as "near future'. It is not
the requirement of law that the
landlords have to permanently live in
the disputed premises.
Case Law discussed:
[(2012) 2 SCC 155]; [2007 (5) SCC 660]; [2000(1)
SCR 77]; [(1998) 2 SCC 1]; [(1979) 1 SCC];
[(1980)1SCC290].