# Jagmal & Ors v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1327
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-27
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagmal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-43740
- **Pages:** 15

## Text

_Characters 0–39,970 of 46,084. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39970 for what follows._

5 All. Jagmal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

1327
Action Construction Equipments Limited vs. R.N. Gupta & Company Limited & others) is hereby
set aside. The court below is restrained in proceedings further with the matter and is directed to
transfer the records of the case to the High Court at the earliest.

44. No order as to costs.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

First Appeal No.- 458 Of 1984

Jagmal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellants:
J.S. Srivastava, Amar Nath Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent:
S.C., M.N. Singh, U.S. Awasthy.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 18, 23 & 25 (unamended) - Review - Scope of
review - Compensation - Determination of market value - Relief beyond pleadings -
Applicability of subsequent acquisitions - Delay condonation - Error apparent on record.

Land of village Agahapur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad was acquired for NOIDA pursuant to notification
dated 16.09.1976 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.18,150/- per
bigha. In first appeal, claimants sought enhancement only upto Rs.10/- per sq. yard (Rs.30,250/- per bigha).
By judgment dated 11.03.2015, this Court enhanced compensation to Rs.297/- per sq. yard relying upon
Division Bench judgments relating to acquisitions of subsequent years. Review application was filed by
beneficiary authority contending that relief granted was beyond pleadings, valuation and evidence, contrary to
Section 23 and unamended Section 25 of the Act.

Held, delay in filing review sufficiently explained - delay condoned.

Held, review is maintainable where judgment suffers from error apparent on record - Court had ignored
material facts, pleadings and binding precedents relating to same village and same acquisition period -
reliance on compensation determined for acquisitions of 1986-1992 for acquisition of 1976 is impermissible.

Held, relief cannot be granted beyond prayer made and valuation of appeal - under unamended Section 25
of the Act, compensation cannot exceed amount claimed.
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held, consistent line of Division Bench judgments relating to same village or adjoining villages for notifications
of 1975-1977 had determined market value @ Rs.28.12 per sq. yard - no distinguishing features shown.
Review allowed - judgment dated 11.03.2015 recalled - compensation re-determined @
Rs.28.12 per sq. yard with statutory benefits - excess enhancement set aside.

Case Listed

Land Acquisition Officer-CumDSWO, A.P. Vs. B.V. Reddy and Sons, (2002) 3 SCC 463
Girdhari Lal Gupta Vs. D.H. Mehta and another, (1971) 3 SCC 189
Rajendra Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and another
Khajan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)

1. On 06.10.2015, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. passed an order on the order
sheet observing that the review application to be put up before appropriate bench after obtaining
nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. On 14.10.2015, Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed an
order on the order sheet to lay/ list the case before the appropriate court dealing with such matters.
Thus, the afore-noted review application along with delay condonation application has come up
before this bench for hearing.

2. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the applicant/ respondent No.2 and Sri Y.D.
Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants on Delay Condonation Application No.174703 of 2015
and Civil Misc. Review Application No.174702 of 2015.

3. The above noted review application has been filed by the respondent No.2 for review of the
order dated 11.03.2015 passed by this Court holding that the claimants appellants shall be entitled
for compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard in respect of their land of village
Aghapur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad acquired by Notification published
on 16.09.1976 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act"). The judgment dated 11.03.2015 was passed in the first appeal arising from the
common judgment dated 23.12.1982 passed in various land acquisition references including the
Land Acquisition Reference No.42 of 1978 of the claimants appellants.

Submission of the Applicant/ respondent No.2:-

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/ respondent No.2 submits that the order dated 11.03.2015
is liable to be reviewed for the following reasons:

(i) The relief claimed in the appeal was only for compensation at the rate of Rs.10/-
per square yard or Rs.30250/- per bigha. The appellants never sought the relief for payment of
compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard. Consequently, the relief which was not
5 All. Jagmal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

1329
prayed, could not have been granted in the appeal. In other words, he submits that no relief can be
granted beyond the prayer made in the appeal and valuation of the appeal.

(ii) The Act was amended in the year 1984. The acquisition was made in the year
1976. Thus, only unamended provisions were applicable. As per unamended Section 25 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the amount of compensation cannot
exceed the amount of compensation claimed. The provision of Section 25 of the Act was a
substantive provision. The amended provision of Section 25 nowhere indicates that the same would
have retrospective effect and consequently, it would not apply to awards made prior to 24.09.1984
when new provision was substituted by Act No.68 of 1984. In support of his submissions, he relies
upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-DSWO, A.P. Vs.
B.V. Reddy and Sons, (2002) 3 SCC 463 (paras-4 to 8).

(iii) Initially by order dated 02.09.2009, the appeal was allowed ex parte granting
relief for compensation as sought by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal @ Rs.30250/- per
bigha. The respondent No.2 moved a recall application stating therein that the order was passed ex
parte. On the aforesaid Recall Application of the Applicant/ respondent No.2, the order dated
02.09.2009 was recalled. Thereafter, the court passed an order dated 11.03.2015 determining
compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard, which was neither a pleaded case nor an
argued case nor prayer to that extent was sought and as such, the relief as has been granted by order
dated 11.03.2015, could not have been granted in any circumstances. This was a mistake apparent
on record, and, therefore, the order is liable to be reviewed.

(iv) Since the provision of Section 25 of the Act as then existed, was not
considered by the High Court while passing the order dated 11.03.2015 and as such, the said order
is liable to be reviewed in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Girdhari Lal Gupta Vs. D.H. Mehta and another, (1971) 3 SCC 189 (para-15). The judgment on
the basis of which the order dated 11.03.2015 was passed, relates to notifications of the year 1988,
1989 and 1991 while the subject matter of the present appeal was land acquisition as per provisions
of Section 23 of the Act made by notification dated 16.09.1976 under Section 4 of the Act. Thus,
the court was bound to determine the market value as on the date of acquisition and to determine
the amount of compensation accordingly but it cannot rely upon the compensation awarded with
respect to a subsequent land acquisition of 10 or 20 years after.

(iv) The compensation awarded with respect to land acquisition under a
notification of a subsequent period, cannot be applied for determination of compensation of land
acquisition of a much prior period. In support of his submissions, he relies upon a judgment of this
court dated 14.05.2015 in First Appeal No.200 of 2015, Rajendra Prasad and another Vs. State
of U.P. and another (para-33).
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(vi) The market value determined under the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by this
court is wholly arbitrary, baseless and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the settled
principles of law and without any foundation

Submission of the Appellants:-

5. Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, submits as under:

(i) A Division Bench of this court has determined the compensation at the rate of
Rs.297/- per square yard with respect to the same notification by order dated 03.12.2014 in the case
of Khajan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in First Appeal No.564 of 1997, decided on
11.10.2012 and, therefore, there is no error in the judgment dated 11.03.2015 passed in this appeal.
He further submits that in the case of in the case of Khajan and others (supra), the Division Bench
considered the land acquisition notifications ranging from the year 1983 to 1992 and awarded
compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relating to adjoining villages and as such the same rate
of compensation has rightly been allowed by this court by order dated 11.03.2015.

(ii) Several judgments were passed awarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard
and thus, there is no justification to deny the same rate of compensation to the appellants.

(iii) If this bench does not agree with the judgment passed by the Division Bench
awarding Rs.297/- per square yard, then in that situation, the matter has to be referred to a larger
bench in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) Supreme 319 (para-19).

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

Delay Condonation Application:-

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has neither raised any objection during the course of his
argument against the delay condonation application nor has filed counter affidavit to the delay
condonation application or the review application nor sought time for filing counter affidavit but
preferred to argue the review application on merit.

8. In the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, the applicant/ respondent
No.2 has explained the delay in paragraphs-8 & 9 of the affidavit. Cause shown for delay in filing
the review application is sufficient. Consequently, the Delay Condonation Application
No.174703 of 2015 is allowed.

Review Application:-

9. The aforesaid review application has been filed by the applicant/ respondent No.2 on the
following grounds:
5 All. Jagmal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

1331

1. "Because, the relief sought for by means of the present First Appeal, the records
as formed part of the Appeal and the pleadings contained therein appear to have been escaped the
kind attention of the Hon'ble Court, while passing the judgment and order dated 11.3.2015, and as
such, the same is liable to be reviewed

2. Because, the appeal in question, arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No.42
of 1978, relate to village Ahgapur in respect whereof the Notification under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act, was issued on 16.9.1976 and possession of the land was taken on 26.10.1976,
whereafter in the Award dated 11.8.1977 the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.36 per Sq. Yard and
Rs.3.23 per Sq. Yard i.e. Rs.13205 = 70 per Bigha and Rs.9777 =30 per Bigha was fixed for
irrigated and un-irrigated category of lands respectively, and as such, there was no occasion to
award of Rs.297=00 per sq. yard as compensation, as has been made under the order dated
11.3.2015

3. That, against the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the
reference was made to enhance the compensation to Rs.18150=00 per Bigha i.e. Rs.6/- per sq. yard
and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 23.12.1982, and it is against the aforesaid
judgment that the present First Appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Court wherein the relief
for enhancing the compensation has been sought praying, inter-alia, therein for enhancement of
compensation from Rs.18150 =00 per Bigha to Rs.28.12 per sq. yard in terms of the relief sought
for by means of other tenure-holdings pertaining to same acquisition and pertaining to the same
village as formed subject-matter of First Appeal No.83 of 1983 (Chandu and others v. State of U.P.
and others ), and as such, in view of the relief sought for by the appellants by means of the present
First Appeal praying for enhancement of compensation to Rs.28.12 per sq. yard, there was no
occasion for the award of Rs.297=00 per sq. yard in favour of the appellants

4. Because, the present First Appeal has been decided by this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 2.9.2009, whereby this Hon'ble Court, in view of the judgment dated 29.3.2008 passed
in First Appeal No.83 of 1983 (Chandu and others v. State of U.P. and others ) had been pleased to
award compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs.10 = 00 per sq. yard, against which
judgment the Review Application has been filed on behalf of NOIDA on account of the fact that the
same was ex parte; which application had been allowed by this Hon'ble Court on 22.5.2014,
whereafter the Appeal came to be decided afresh vide judgment and order dated 11.3.2015 and
while passing such judgment the relevant facts appear to have been escaped the kind attention of
the Hon'ble Court.

5. That, the appellants are not at all entitled for the benefit of the judgments
rendered in First Appeal No.564 of 1997 (Khajan Singh v. State of U.P. and others ), First Appeal
No.1096 of 1999 (Raghuraj Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others ) and First Appeal
No.34 of 2007 (Ganeshi Singh versus State of U.P. and others) and further parity on behalf of the
decision rendered in the aforesaid Appeals could not have been extended in favour of the
appellants herein inasmuch as not only the Notifications are entirely different but the matter
pertains to entirely different but the matter pertains to entirely different villages, and moreover,
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there was absolutely no claim of the tenure holders/appellants, either before the Reference Court
or before this Hon'ble Court, claiming compensation beyond Rs.28.12 per sq. yard, and as such,
there was no occasion for award of compensation amounting to Rs.297.00 per sq. yard in favour of
the claimants/appellants.

6. Because, the Land Acquisition Reference giving rise to the present First Appeal
relating to Notification dated 16.9.1976 engaged the attention of the District Judge, Ghaziabad in
total 10 Land Acquisition References, including one giving rise to the present First Appeal, and in
none of the matters the claimants sought enhancement of compensation beyond Rs.28.12 per sq.
yard and further even the present appellants have not sought enhancement of compensation beyond
the said rate, and as such, apparently the aforesaid facts have escaped the kind attention of the
Hon'ble Court while passing the judgment dated 11.3.2015

7. Because, the award of compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants under
the judgment and order dated 11.3.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court is highly exorbitant and
irrational inasmuch as the claimants/appellants herein are not entitled for award of similar amount
of compensation as has been awarded to the tenure holders of village Bhangel Begumpur,
Chhalera Bangar, Sarfabad etc. which fact appears to have escaped the kind attention of the
Hon'ble Court while passing the judgment and order dated 11.3.2015.

8. Because, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and
the material as formed part of record, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2015 passed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.D. Khare cannot be sustained in law, and as such, the same is liable to be
reviewed/recalled."

Questions for Determination:-

10. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the following
questions emerge for determination in the review application:

(i) Whether the applicant/ respondent No.2 has made out a case for review of the
judgment dated 11.03.2015?

(ii) Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation on the same market value
of Rs.297/- per square yard as determined by the Division Bench by this court in First Appeal
No.564 of 1997, Khajan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and First Appeal No.1056 of 1999,
Raghuraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others OR on some other rate.

(iii) Whether market value for compensation under Section 23 of the Act for
acquisition of land by notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 16.09.1976, can be
determined on the basis of market value of the acquired land of other villages under notifications of
the year 1986, 1988, 1989 or 1990?
5 All. Jagmal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

1333

(iv) Whether the High Court can enhance compensation to thirty times of the claim
of the claimants-appellants and that too, beyond the pleadings and relevant evidences and the relief
sought in the appeal?

 FACTS OF THE CASE:-

11. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that lands of village Agahapur, Pargana
and Tehsil Dadri District Ghaziabad (now NOIDA) was acquired for the New Okhla
Industrial Development (for short 'NOIDA') under notification published in the U.P. Gazette
dated 16.09.1976 under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was followed by notification under
Section 6 of the Act. The possession was taken over on 26.10.1976. The land-holders filed
objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO'), who considered the
objections and passed the award dated 11.08.1977 accepting a sale deed exemplar of 07.05.1976
and awarded compensation @ Rs.13205.71 per bigha for Abi land and Rs.9777.30 for Khaki land.
Several Land Acquisition References were filed at the instance of the landholders under
Section 18 of the Act. Several land acquisition references including the Land Acquisition
Reference No.42 of 1978 of the claimants appellants, were decided by the impugned common
judgment dated 23.12.1982 passed by the court of District Judge, Ghaziabad determining
compensation @ Rs.18150/- per bigha along with statutory solatium @ 15% in respect of the
acquired land and interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the
date of dispossession to the date of payment. The court below considered the evidences with
regard to market value led by the claimants and recorded the following findings:

"The claimants have filed four exemplar sale deeds to show that the market price of
the acquired land was not less than Rs.10/- per square yard on the material date.

Ex.1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.03.76 executed by Ram Swarup,
Partner, Laxmi Housing Cooperative Society in respect of 300 square yard land of Khasra no.145
situated in village Nayabans for a consideration of Rs.5400/-. The rate comes to Rs.18/- per
square yard. A very small parcel of land was sold by this sale deed, therefore, the purchaser could
have paid a fency price. Thus this sale deed cannot be treated as a good exemplar.

Ex.3 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 1.3.75 executed by Jiyalal Dhar and
Om Prakash, partner M/s Dhar Gupta and Associates, New Delhi, in favour of Smt. Khem Lata
Vakla in respect of Shreenagar Garden Colony plot no.39 measuring 250 square yard land situated
in village Nayabans, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, for a consideration of Rs.7500/-. The rate
comes to Rs.30/- per square yard. The sold land was of a developed colony and as such it could
fetch better price, therefore, this sale deed cannot be treated as a good exemplar.

Ex.5 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.5.74 executed by Ram Singh in
favour of Nain Singh, Hari Singh, Desraj and Jawahar in respect of 811 square yards land situated
in village Barola, Tehsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad for a consideration of Rs.9000/-. The rate
comes to Rs.11/- per square yard. At the time of sale a boundary was in existence and the same
1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was also made the subject matter of sale. Moreover, the land was located in the village Abadi and
so it was more valuable than the agricultural land, therefore, this sale deed cannot be treated as a
good exemplar.

Ex.8 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 23.1.76 executed by Ram Swarup,
Partner, Laxmi Housing Corporation in respect of 200 square land of khasra nos.905 to 908
situated in village Harola in favour of Deva Singh Bhattacharya for a consideration of Rs.3330/-.
The rate comes to Rs.15-56 per square yard. The land appears to be a developed plot, therefore, it
could easily fetch better price. In the circumstances, this sale deed cannot be treated as a good
exemplar.

 Reliance has also been placed upon Exs.7, 9, 11,12 and 13 the certified copies of
the awards dated 25.2.78, 8.3.77, 25.9.78, 23.3.82 and 15.7.78 in respect of villages Barola,
Harola, Chorra and Suthari respectively. It is submitted that the compensation in respect of the
acquired land of the said villages was granted under the said awards upto Rs.18461.34 and the
claimants are also entitled to receive compensation at the same rate. Similarly the certified copies
of judgments dated 28.5.81 (Ex.2), 17.11.81 (Ex.4), 28.5.81 (Ex.6) and 27.2.82 (Ex.10) passed in
L.A.R. No.247/77 Teja and others Vs. State, L.A.R. No.192/77 Tuli Ram and others Vs. State, L.A.R.
No.76/77 Rampat and others Vs. State, 161/77, Ratia and others Vs. State respectively have also
been filed. In the said cases the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.18,150/- per Bhiga.
P.W.1 Mehar Chand has deposed that the boundaries of village Agahapur adjoin those of
villages Morna, Barola, Chorra and Suthari. He has also deposed that the situationally the land
of his village is at par with the adjoining villages. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that
the ends of justice would meet if the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.18,150/- per bigha.
The issues are decided accordingly."

12. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the aforequoted common
judgment dated 23.12.1982 on the following grounds:

Grounds of Appeal

"1. Because the learned District Judge has committed error of law as well as fact in
not awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.30250/- per bigha.

2. Because the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is grossly
inadequate.

3. Because the learned District Judge has erred in law in not treating the sale deed
filed by the appellant as exemplar sale deeds while determining the amount of compensation.

4. Because the sale deeds filed by the appellant furnished good basis for awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square yard or Rs.30250/- per Bigha.
5 All. Jagmal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

1335

5. Because it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that sale deeds in respect
of small parcels of land can also be treated as exemplar sale deeds. The view of the learned
District Judge to the contrary is erroneous.

6. Because having held that the land in dispute will have to be treated as potential
building site, the learned District Judge, should have awarded compensation at the rate claimed by
the appellant.

7. Because it was proved from the evidence on record that the village Agahpur (in
which the land acquired is situated) was on the boundary of Delhi and close to the Delhi-Dadri
road and the colonies and industrialists were active in the area. As such the value of the land
acquired had considerably increased.

8. Because the fact that the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority for which
the land was acquired, had been selling the acquired land at very high rates proved that the market
value of the land of the appellant was much more than Rs.10/- per yard and as such compensation
should have been awarded at the rate claimed by the appellant."

13. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellants claimed compensation @ Rs.30250/- per
bigha and accordingly the appeal was valued at Rs.1,38,000/-. Since the respondent No.2-
applicant/ beneficiary was not heard while the present appeal was allowed by order dated
02.09.2009 and as such the respondent No.2 moved a Recall Application No.139469 of 2010, dated
07.05.2010 which, by order dated 22.05.2014; was allowed and the order dated 02.09.2009 was
recalled. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and by order dated 11.03.2015, compensation @
Rs.297/- per square yard was allowed on the basis of Division Bench judgment in the case of
Khajan and others (supra) and Raghuraj Singh and others (supra). Thereafter, the applicant/
respondent No.2 has filed the Review Application No.174702 of 2015, dated 15.05.2015 for review
of the aforesaid judgment dated 11.03.2015 on the grounds quoted above.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:-

Question No.(i) Whether the applicant/ respondent No.2 has made out a case for
review of the judgment dated 11.03.2015?

14. In ground No.3 of the Review Application, the applicant/ respondent No.2 has specifically
stated that in First Appeal No.83 of 1983, Chandu and others Vs. State of U.P. and others relating
to the same acquisition of the same village as involved in the present first appeal was decided by
this court enhancing the compensation to Rs.28.12 per square yard (or Rs.30250/- per bigha). The
aforesaid decision was followed by the learned Single Judge when present first appeal was initially
allowed by order dated 02.09.2009. With respect to another acquisition for NOIDA by notification
published in the U.P. Gazette dated 30.04.1976 under Section 4(1) of the Act relating to adjoining
village Harola Makhanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad for the same purpose, the
court of District Judge, Ghaziabad determined the compensation @ Rs.20200/- per bigha in Land
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Acquisition Reference No.161 of 1977 and other connected References which was challenged in
First Appeal No.528 of 1983, Sohan Vs. State of U.P. and others and the compensation was
claimed by the claimants appellants on the same rate as in the present appeal, i.e. Rs.30250/- per
bigha or Rs.10/- per square yard. The aforesaid first appeal was allowed by this court vide order
dated 29.03.2008 determining the market value at the relevant time to be Rs.30250/- per bigha or
Rs.10/- per square yard.

15. In First Appeal No.699 of 1987, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P., decided on
17.07.2001 a Division Bench considered the land acquisition of nearby village Chora Sadatpur by
notification of the year 1975-76 under Section 4(1) of the Act and determined market value of the
acquired land at Rs.28.12 per square yard. In First Appeal No.304 of 1995, Madan Lal Sharma Vs.
State, decided on 08.09.2009 again the Division Bench determined compensation for the acquired
land @ Rs.28.12 per square yard relating to Notification dated 01.06.1976 for village Suthari,
Pargana and Tehsil- Dadri. In First Appeal No.631 of 1986, NOIDA Vs. Ratan Lal and another,
decided on 20.04.2010 and First Appeal No.548 of 2001, Brahm Singh and another Vs. State of
U.P., two Division Benches again followed the earlier Division Bench judgments in the cases of
Smt. Kamlesh Kumari (supra) and NOIDA Vs. Ratan Lal (supra) respectively and determined
compensation @ Rs.28.12 per square yard with respect to acquisition of land by Notification under
Section 4(1) dated 11.01.1977 of village Raghunathpur, Tehsil Dadri.

16. With respect to land acquisition Notification dated 07.11.1985 under Section 4(1) of the
Act relating to another village Gijhode acquired for NOIDA, a Division Bench determined
compensation of Rs.43/- per square yard in First Appeal No.119 of 2002 which was also followed
in First Appeal No.141 of 2002, decided on 10.05.2016. In First Appeal No.562 of 2001, NOIDA
Vs. Champi and others, and other connected appeals decided on 23.07.2015, a Division Bench has
held compensation of Rs.34/- per square yard to be just, reasonable and founded on valid principles
for the acquired land of village Gijhode adjoining to villages Morna, Mamara and Chaura Sadatpur
relating to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 05.01.1982.

17. The judgments of this court as aforenoted clearly demonstrate that compensation for lands
of village in question or the adjoining villages in the year 1976 has been determined by different
Division Benches @ Rs.28.12 per square yard. For land acquired by notification published on
05.01.1982, it determined compensation @ Rs.34/- per square yard and for acquisition by
notification published on 07.11.1985, it determined compensation @ Rs.43/- per square yard. The
aforenoted long line of Division Bench judgments could not be noticed when the judgment in
question dated 11.03.2015 was passed which indicates that the said judgment suffers from mistake
apparent on record in determination of the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard for the land
acquired by notification published on 16.09.1976.

18. In the judgment dated 11.03.2015, reference to various decisions of this court determining
compensation at Rs.297/- per square yard has been made without noticing the fact that the
acquisitions involved in those appeals, were of the years much subsequent to the year of acquisition
in question. This court, by inadvertence, completely ignored the provisions of Section 23 of the
5 All. Jagmal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

1337
Act, which provide for determination of compensation for the acquired land on the market value of
the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It was also
not pointed out to the court that in respect of the same acquisition of the same village, this court
passed various orders determining the compensation @ Rs.28.12 per square yard. While passing
the order under review, the court inadvertently lost sight of the fact that initially the appeal was
allowed by order dated 02.09.2009 awarding compensation as prayed by the appellants following
the decision dated 29.03.2008 in First Appeal No.83 of 1983, Chandu and others (supra), in which
also the compensation was awarded on the aforesaid rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard.

19. Undisputedly, the claimants filed the present first appeal claiming compensation at
Rs.30250/- per bigha to be representing the correct market value as on the date of acquisition and
accordingly, the appeal was valued. The appellants have never pleaded nor sought any relief nor led
any evidence for compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard. Even before the Reference Court, the
claimants appellants and other claimants have led evidences by filing various sale deed exemplars
demonstrating market value of the acquired land from Rs.10/- to Rs.30/- per square yard of small
size plots. Thus, the claimants appellants have neither set up any claim nor ever led any evidence
for compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard nor pleaded at any stage of the proceedings for
compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard. The order under review was passed in complete
ignorance of above noted facts and legal provisions. Thus, the order under review dated 11.03.2015
suffers from manifest error of law and facts and, therefore, it deserves to be reviewed and review
application deserves to be allowed.

Question No. (ii) Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation on the same
market value of Rs.297/- per square yard as determined by the Division Bench by this court
in First Appeal No.564 of 1997, Khajan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and First
Appeal No.1056 of 1999, Raghuraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others OR on some
other rate.

AND

Question No. (iii) Whether market value for compensation under Section 23 of the Act
for acquisition of land by notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 16.09.1976,
can be determined on the basis of market value of the acquired land of other villages under
notifications of the year 1986, 1988, 1989 or 1990?

AND

Question No. (iv) Whether the High Court can enhance compensation to thirty times of
the claim of the claimants-appellants and that too, beyond the pleadings and relevant
evidences and the relief sought in the appeal?

20. Since questions No.(ii), (iii) & (iv) are interlinked and as such, these are being considered
together.
1338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Undisputedly, the claimants appellants have pleaded and led evidences for determination
of market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
published on 16.09.1976 claiming compensation @ Rs.30250/- per bigha or Rs.10/- per square
yard. Before the Reference Court, the claimants appellants and other claimants have led various
evidence by filing sale deed exemplars which indicated consideration from Rs.10/- to Rs.30/- per
square yard of nearby plots depending upon its size. They valued their first appeal @ Rs.30250/-
per bigha and the court fees was accordingly determined.

22. Thus, according to their own pleaded case of the claimants appellants, the market value of
the acquired land as on the date of acquisition i.e. on 16.09.1976, was Rs.10/- per square yard or
Rs.30250/- per bigha.

23. The provision of Section 23 of the Act clearly stipulates the principles for determination of
the amount of compensation by court to be awarded for land acquired under the Act. The first
principle clearly mandates that market value of acquired land shall be determined as prevailing on
the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the present set of facts, the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16.09.1976. Thus, the
market value of the acquired land has to be determined under the Act as on 16.09.1976. The
judgments in the case of Khajan and others (supra) and Raghuraj Singh and others (supra) relates to
determination of market value of land acquired in much subsequent years, which can never be
applied to determine compensation of the acquired land as on 16.09.1976.

24. In the case of Bhupal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 5 SCC 801 Hon'ble Supreme
Court specifically considered similar question of determination of market value under Section 23 of
the Act and held that the 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-27 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:

"27. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the fair market value of the
acquired land is required to be determined under Section 23 of the Act 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. In
appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale deeds
(if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the market value of
the acquired land may be permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand. Here is the case where
firstly, no sale deeds were filed by the appellants to prove the fair market value of the acquired
land and secondly, what they now want this Court to do is to take into consideration the rate of
those lands which were acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in question and then
reduce the value of such land by 10% every year so as to determine the fair market value of the
acquired land in question. In our view, such procedure for determination is not provided in the
Act."
5 All. Jagmal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

1339
(Emphasis supplied by me)

25. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. Etc.
(1989) 2 SCC 754 (para-33), Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
provisions of Section 23 and Section 11 of the Act and and held as under:

"33. We find substance in the contention of the learned Attorney General that if
Parliament had intended that the benefit of enhanced solatium should be extended to all pending
proceedings it would have said so in clear language. On the contrary, as he says, the terms in
which Section 30(2) is couched indicate a limited extension of the benefit. The Amendment Act has
not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date, and such retrospectivity
as appears is restricted to certain areas covered by the parent Act and must be discovered from the
specific terms of the provision concerned. Since it is necessary to spell out the degree of
retrospectivity from the language of the relevant provision itself, close attention must be paid to the
provisions of Section 30(2) for determining the scope of retrospective relief intended by Parliament
in the matter of enhanced solatium. The learned Attorney General is also right when he points out
that it was never intended to define the scope of the enhanced solatium on the mere accident of the
disposal of a case in appeal on a certain date. Delays in the superior Courts extend now to limits
which were never anticipated when the right to approach them for relief was granted by statute. If
it was intended that Section 30(2) should refer to appeals pending before the High Court or the
Supreme Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, they could well refer to
proceedings in which an award had been made by the Collector from anything between 10 to 20
years before. It could never have been intended that rates of compensation and solatium applicable
to acquisition proceedings initiated so long ago should now enjoy the benefit of statutory
enhancement. It must be remembered that the value of the land is taken under Section 11(1) and
Section 23(1) with reference to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1), and
it is that date which is usually material for the purpose of determining the quantum of
compensation and solatium. Both Section 11(1) and Section 23(1) speak of compensation being
determined on the basis, inter alia, of the market value of the land on that date, and solatium by
Section 23(2), is computed as a percentage on such market value."

 (Emphasis supplied by me)

26. In the case of of Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544
(Para-12), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered situation of two acquired lands and held as under:

"In the case of the appellants herein, it is an admitted position that the properties do not
abut the national highway. Admittedly, it is situated about 375 yards away from the national
highway and it appears that there is only the narrow Nahan Kothi Road connecting the properties
of the appellants to the national highway. Therefore, it will not be just and proper to award land
value of Rs.250/- per square yard, which is granted to the property in adjoining village. Having
regard to the factual and legal position obtained above, we are of the considered view that the just
and fair compensation in the case of appellants would be Rs.200/- per square yard."
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27.