# Natthan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 74
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-05
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 388 of 2015
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/natthan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51339
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Ashok
Mehta,
Prabhat
Tripathi,
S.C.,
Subodh Kumar

A. Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Section 6 - Award - Determination
of compensation - Doctrine of merger -
Applicability - High Court passed an
order dated 10.01.2002 in Ran Singh's
case
enhancing
the
compensation,
against which S.L.P. of acquiring body
(CPWD and UOI) was dismissed in
limine
with
certain
observation
regarding
impleadment
-
C.P.W.D./U.O.I. were not parties to
the lis culminating into the order
dated 10.01.2002 - Effect - Held, the
adjudication made by this Court in
Ran Singh's case would not amount
to merger or confirmation of this
Court's judgment dated 10.01.2002
in the Supreme Court's orders, at
least affecting or prejudicing any
right of acquiring body. (Para 9, 23
and 24)

B. Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Sections 9 & 25 - Award - No
claim was raised in pursuance to the
notice issued u/s 9 - No dispute regarding
service of notice has been raised - Effect -
Entitlement of over amount to the award -
Bar of Section 25 - Applicability - Held, S.
25, as existed on the date of issuance of
notifications, would operate as a statutory
obstruction standing against the claimants
to claim any higher compensation over
and above Rs. 1.90/- per Sq. Yd. as
determined by the S.L.A.O. under the
initial award. (Para 26 and 32)

First Appeal of tenure holders dismissed
and of St. allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
12 All. Natthan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75

## Text

_Characters 0–39,577 of 51,488. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39577 for what follows._

74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not afresh in accordance with law and
observations made here-in-above in this order
expeditiously and within a period of three
months
without
granting
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties and fixing
at least one date in a week and, if possible, on
day to day basis and send the order so passed
alongwith the evidence adduced by the
parties, if any. The determination of the issue
earlier made by the lower appellate court
shall be subject to fresh determination made
by the lower appellate court under this order
and abide by the same.

26. The case shall be listed immediately
after receipt of the order passed by the lower
appellate court with the record or in the week
commencing 21.04.2025, whichever is earlier
for further hearing.

27. The lower court record shall be
remitted forthwith to the concerned appellate
court so that it may reach before the date
fixed before the lower appellate court for
appearance in this order. The parties shall
appear before the lower appellate court on
15.01.2025.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 74
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

First Appeal No. 388 of 2015
With
First Appeal No. 357 of 2016
With
First Appeal No. 1104 of 2003
With
First Appeal No. 1138 of 2003

Natthan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Madan Mohan, Rakesh Pande, Shailesh K.
Upadhyay, Shailesh Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashok
Mehta,
Prabhat
Tripathi,
S.C.,
Subodh Kumar

A. Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Section 6 - Award - Determination
of compensation - Doctrine of merger -
Applicability - High Court passed an
order dated 10.01.2002 in Ran Singh's
case
enhancing
the
compensation,
against which S.L.P. of acquiring body
(CPWD and UOI) was dismissed in
limine
with
certain
observation
regarding
impleadment
-
C.P.W.D./U.O.I. were not parties to
the lis culminating into the order
dated 10.01.2002 - Effect - Held, the
adjudication made by this Court in
Ran Singh's case would not amount
to merger or confirmation of this
Court's judgment dated 10.01.2002
in the Supreme Court's orders, at
least affecting or prejudicing any
right of acquiring body. (Para 9, 23
and 24)

B. Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Sections 9 & 25 - Award - No
claim was raised in pursuance to the
notice issued u/s 9 - No dispute regarding
service of notice has been raised - Effect -
Entitlement of over amount to the award -
Bar of Section 25 - Applicability - Held, S.
25, as existed on the date of issuance of
notifications, would operate as a statutory
obstruction standing against the claimants
to claim any higher compensation over
and above Rs. 1.90/- per Sq. Yd. as
determined by the S.L.A.O. under the
initial award. (Para 26 and 32)

First Appeal of tenure holders dismissed
and of St. allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
12 All. Natthan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
1. Uttar Pradesh Awas Vikas Vs Gyan Devi
(deceased); 1995 (2) SCC 326

2. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Virendra Bahadur
Katheria & ors.; 2024 (3) SLJ 1

3. Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; AIR 2022
SC 4705

4. Dadoo Yogendranath Singh & ors. Vs The
Collector, Seoni; 1977 (2) SCC 1

5. Gobardhan Mahto Vs St. of Bihar; 1979 (4)
SCC 330

6. Dilawarsab Babusab Mullasab & ors. Vs
Special Land Acquisition Officer; 1975 (1) SCC
158

7. St. of Maharashtra Vs Shanta Bai & anr.; AIR
1980 Bombay 36

8. Ashok Kumar & anr. Vs St. of Haryana;
(2016) 4 SCC 544

9. Narendra Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2017 (9) SCC 426

10. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs Kanhaiya
Lal & ors.; 2002 (7) SCC 756

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

APPEALS ARISING OUT OF LAND
ACQUISITION REFERENCES

1. Heard Shri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned
counsel appearing for the claimants/tenure holders in
all matters and Shri Subodh Kumar alongwith Shri
Udit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for
C.P.W.D. as well as U.O.I. at length.

2. Since common questions of fact and law are
involved in all the matters, the same are being
decided by common judgment. Distinguishing
features of individual cases, if any, would reflect at
appropriate places in this judgment or in the
judgment/order passed in such matters separately.
For the convenience sake, First Appeal No. 388 of
2015 is being treated as the leading appeal.

3. The instant appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 30.03.1991 passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Land
Acquisition Reference No. 29 of 1987. The land in
dispute situates in village Raispur, Tehsil and District
Ghaziabad. The description of area and all gatas
number does not seem to be relevant as the issue
involved in all these matters revolves around few
orders passed by this Court earlier in other matters
and few orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
As a matter of fact, these appeals are to be decided in
the light of effect of those decided proceedings.

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

4. The land of tenure holders, namely, Ran
Singh, Ganga Ram, Nathhan Singh, Khoob Singh,
Ram Kishan etc. was acquired by the State of U.P.
for the purposes of development by the Central
Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as
"C.P.W.D."). Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on
28.12.1963 that was published on 04.01.1964. It was
followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act
published on 24.07.1965. A corrigendum was issued
on 10.10.1972 regarding certain plots that were
skipped in the earlier notifications and, consequently,
the left-out plots were also included in the acquired
land. State Government took possession over the
acquired land on 09.03.1973. An award was
published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(hereinafter referred to as "S.L.A.O.") on 22.09.1986
awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.90/- per
Sq. Yd.

5. Five land owners filed Land Acquisition
References (hereinafter referred to as "L.A.Rs.")
seeking enhancement of compensation. These
L.A.Rs. were clubbed together with following details
and were jointly decided by the reference court by
judgment dated 30.03.1991 enhancing compensation
from Rs.1.90/- per Sq. Yd. to Rs. 8/- per Sq. Yd.:-

(i) L.A.R. No. 25 of 1987 (Ran Singh
and others vs. State of U.P.)
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) L.A.R. No. 26 of 1987 (Ganga Ram
and others vs. State of U.P.)

(iii) L.A.R. No. 27 of 1987 (Ram Kishan
vs. State of U.P.)

(iv) L.A.R. No. 29 of 1987 (Natthan and
others vs. State of U.P.)

(v) L.A.R. No. 30 of 1987 (Khoob Singh
and another vs. State of U.P.)

6. Three (3) land owners, out of five (5), filed
following First Appeals before this Court:-

(i) First Appeal No. 809 of 1993 (Ran
Singh vs. State of U.P.)

(ii) First Appeal (Defective) No. 322 of
1992 (Natthan and others vs. State of U.P.) (
subsequently registered as regular First Appeal No.
388 of 2015, i.e. the instant leading appeal).

(iii) First Appeal (Defective) No. 248 of
1992 (Ganga Ram and others vs. State of U.P.)
(subsequently registered as regular First Appeal No.
357 of 2016)

7. State of U.P. also filed five (5) First Appeals
against
Reference
Court's
order
dated
30.03.1991with following details:-

(i) First Appeal (Defective) No. 612 of
1991 (State of U.P. vs. Ran Singh) (subsequently
renumbered as First Appeal No. 1140 of 2003)

(ii) First Appeal (Defective) No. 614 of
1991 ( State of U.P. vs. Ram Kishan) (subsequently
renumbered as First Appeal No. 1119 of 2003)

(iii) First Appeal (Defective) No. 609 of
1991 (State of U.P. vs. Khoob Singh) (subsequently
renumbered as First Appeal No. 1143 of 2003)

(iv) First Appeal (Defective) No. 613 of
1991 (State of U.P. vs. Natthan) (renumbered as First
Appeal No. 1104 of 2003)

(v) First Appeal (Defective) No. 611 of
1991 (State of U.P. vs. Ganga Ram) (renumbered as
First Appeal No. 1138 of 2003)

8. First Appeal No. 809 of 1993 (Ran Singh vs.
State of U.P.) (herein-after referred to as "Ran
Singh's case") was allowed by this Court by
judgment dated 10.01.2002 enhancing compensation
from Rs.8/- per Sq. Yd to Rs. 84/- per Sq. Yd. In the
meantime, some affected land holders filed
applications under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 that were allowed by the S.L.A.O. and an
award was declared on 16.08.1992. Being aggrieved,
Union of India preferred Writ Petition Nos. 31447 of
1992, 31448 of 1992, 31449 of 1992, 31450 of 1992
that were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court
by a common order dated 27.03.2003, the award
dated 16.08.1992 was quashed with further
observation that "applications under Section 28-A
shall be kept pending by the Collector/Land
Acquisition Officer and shall be decided in
accordance with law after the decisions in pending
first appeals", i.e. above-referred first appeals filed by
the State of U.P.

9. Challenging the aforesaid order dated
10.01.2002 passed in Ran Singh's case enhancing
compensation from Rs.8/- per Sq. Yd to Rs. 84/- per
Sq. Yd, the State of U.P. filed Special Leave Petition
No. 5022 of 2004 (S.L.P. No. at some places is
described as 3022 but the case is same) before the
Supreme Court that was rejected on the ground of
delay on 19.07.2004. The State of U.P. filed Review
Application No. 227 of 2005, which was also
rejected on 15.02.2005 after condoning the delay.
Thereafter, C.P.W.D. filed a review application
alongwith impleadment application before this Court
seeking review of the order dated 10.01.2002 passed
in Ran Singh's case. The said applications were
rejected by this Court on 12.08.2009 as barred by
time and after making certain other observations.
Challenging the order dated 12.08.2009, C.P.W.D.
filed S.L.P. Nos. 16202-16203 of 2010, which were
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.07.2011 with
observation that the question whether the acquiring
body was a necessary party or not, was not gone into
S.L.Ps..

10. Taking aid of observations made in order
dated 18.07.2011, C.P.W.D. and U.O.I. filed
impleadment applications in the pending appeals and
the same were allowed. Consequently, in the appeals
filed by the State of U.P., C.P.W.D. and U.O.I. were
impleaded as appellants whereas in the appeals filed
by the tenure holders, they were impleaded as
respondents. The orders allowing impleadment
applications were never challenged and, therefore,
these appeals were heard by and against the said
impleaded parties. The Court may observe here that
in orders dated 01.11.2017 passed in First Appeal
12 All. Natthan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77
Nos. 1104-2003 and 1138-2003 it has already been
observed that State had chosen not to press these
appeals and the appeals shall remain only at the
instance of C.P.W.D./Union of India.

11. When the appeals came up for joint
consideration on merits, this Court, after taking into
consideration the above-referred orders passed by
this Court and the Supreme Court in Ran Singh's
case, dismissed the First Appeal No. 1119 of 2003
(State of U.P. vs. Ram Kishan) by order dated
06.11.2012 observing finality attached to the
determination of market value of the property and
non-filing of any cross-objections or cross appeals
against the award of the Reference Court.

12. Thereafter, successors of late Ram Kishan,
i.e., respondents in First Appeal No. 1119 of 2003,
filed delay condonation application, leave to press an
abatement application accompanied by review
application with the contention that the appeal could
not be decided on merits as factum of death of Ram
Kishan was not brought to the notice of the Court
and, hence, the appeal had stood abated by operation
of law. This Court, by order dated 02.02.2016,
allowed the review application, recalled the order
dated 06.11.2012 and another order dated 26.08.2015
earlier dismissing the application seeking leave to
press an abatement application, restored the said
application to its original number, allowed the
abatement application and dismissed the appeal as
abated. This Court, however, made it clear that order
dismissing the appeal as abated would be read in
relation to the First Appeal No. 1119 of 2003 (State
vs. Ram Kishan) only and insofar as other four
connected appeals are concerned, the order dated
06.11.2012 would remain operative. It is needless to
mention that on 06.11.2012 when First Appeal No.
1119 of 2003 (State vs. Ram Kishan) was dismissed
on merits, connected First Appeal Nos. 1140 of 2003
(State vs. Ran Singh) 1143 of 2003 (State vs.
Khaoob Singh) were also dismissed for the reasons
given in the order deciding First Appeal No. 1119 of
2003.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

13. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, following points for determination arise for
consideration in these appeals:-

1. "Whether in view of the
judgment/order of this Court dated 10.01.2002
passed in First Appeal No. 809 of 1993 (Ran Singh's
case) having travelled upto the Supreme Court,
C.P.W.D. and/or U.O.I, have been left with any say
in the matter and can determination of compensation
as Rs.84/- per Sq. Yd. be set aside/reduced by this
Court ignoring doctrine of merger?"

2. Whether the tenure holders having not
raised a claim pursuant to notice issued under section
9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as it then
existed, they are, at all, entitled for any amount over
and above the one awarded by the S.L.A.O. in view
of bar contained in section 25?

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF TENURE
HOLDERS

14. Shri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel
appearing for the tenure-holders, vehemently argued
that once this Court enhanced compensation from
Rs.8/- per Sq. Yd. to Rs. 84/- per Sq.Yd. and the said
judgment was carried upto the Supreme Court by the
State of U.P. and also by C.P.W.D. and U.O.I. and
the Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.Ps. as well as
review application granting no relief to either State of
U.P. or C.P.W.D. or U.O.I., no contrary view can be
taken by this Court against the determination of
compensation at the rate of Rs.84/- per Sq. Yd. and,
hence, all the appeals filed by C.P.W.D. and U.O.I.
are liable to be dismissed and those filed by the
tenure-holders are entitled to be allowed determining
compensation at the rate of Rs. 84/- per Sq.Yd. It was
also argued that when the Reference Court decided
five L.A.Rs. by judgment dated 30.03.1991, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization,
Ghaziabad wrote a letter dated 13.05.1991 to the
concerned
Engineer
of
C.P.W.D.,
Hinden,
Ghaziabad asking him to furnish his opinion
regarding filing of appeal against the order of
Reference Court and associated aspects like expenses
qua the same. Responding to the said letter, the
concerned
Engineer
of
C.P.W.D.
sent
a
communication dated 27.06.1991 to the S.L.A.O
stating that since the Department was not a party to
the proceedings and was informed at the very last
stage, it was not possible for the Department to prefer
appeal, until and unless the Department was arrayed
as a party. The Engineer asked the S.L.A.O to file an
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeal at his own end. Submission is that once
C.P.W.D. expressed its reluctance to challenge the
decision of the Reference Court and asked State to
prefer appeal and, once, the State preferred appeals
and lost from this Court and, then, upto the Supreme
Court, C.P.W.D. cannot make any submission
against the determination which has attained finality.
It has further been argued that even if C.P.W.D. has
made submissions in this case, since all the tenure
holders are identically placed and their land was also
acquired under same notifications, they are entitled
for the same rate of compensation as has been
determined in Ran Singh's case.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF C.P.W.D. AND
U.O.I.

15. Per contra, Shri Subodh Kumar alongwith
Shri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for C.P.W.D. and
U.O.I., vehemently opposed each and every
submission advanced on behalf of tenure holders.
Their arguments are as under:-

(i) C.P.W.D. and U.O.I. not being parties
to the proceedings, determination made on the
contest made by the State of U.P. would not affect
their rights and contentions and, in view of decision
of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Awas Vikas
vs. Gyan Devi (deceased), 1995 (2) SCC 326, they
have their own legal right to contest and press the
matter.

(ii) S.L.P. No. 5022 of 2004 preferred by
the State of U.P. against the judgment and order
dated 10.01.2002 passed in Ran Singh's case was
dismissed only on the ground of delay by order dated
19.07.2004, which order would not amount to
merger of the order of this Court, at least adversely
affecting the rights of C.P.W.D. and U.O.I.

(iii) Order dated 15.02.2005 rejecting the
Review Application No. 227 of 2005 filed by the
State even after condoning the delay would not result
in closure of rights of C.P.W.D. and U.O.I. to lay
their challenge to the determination made at the rate
of Rs.84/- per Sq. Yd.

(iv) Though, C.P.W.D.'s/U.O.I.'s review
application in Ran Singh's case, was dismissed on
12.08.2009 by this Court on the ground of delay and
S.L.Ps. No. 16202-16203 of 2010 filed their-against,
were dismissed by the Supreme Court on
18.07.2011, since the Supreme Court clearly
observed that the question of acquiring body being a
necessary party had not been gone into in the said
S.L.Ps. and, subsequently, the C.P.W.D. and U.O.I.
have been impleaded in these proceedings, they have
their own say in the matter and, hence, their rights
cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of
determination made in Ran Singh's case. Further in
none of the S.L.Ps., leave was granted by Supreme
Court, therefore, doctrine of merger would not apply
in the instant case.

(v) Judgment dated 10.01.2002 passed in
Ran Singh's case runs on absolutely wrong premise
recording entirely different facts having no concern
with the present lis. This Court began judgment in
Ran Singh's case with the statement that "the
Ghaziabad Development Authority framed a scheme
for development of the City within the municipal
limits and for that purposes the land of the appellants
and of other persons was acquired", whereas the
instant case has no concern with Ghaziabad
Development Authority nor did the said Authority
ever frame any scheme; rather it was the State of
U.P. that acquired land for the project, namely,
'Central Public Works Department for constructions
of quarters of Government Employees'.

(vi) In Ran Singh's case, this Court
described notification under Section 6 of the Act
having been issued on 22.09.1986, whereas, in the
instant case notification under Section 6 is 21 years
old and is dated 20.07.1965.

(vii) In Ran Singh's case, acquisition was
referred to in relation to development of two colonies
within the municipal limits of Ghaziabad whereas, in
other cases, the construction of houses for employees
of C.P.W.D. was to be made over 31 acres of Mauza
Sahari, Pargana Loni, District Meerut, 353 acres of
Mauza Harson, Pargana Dasna, district Meerut and
371 acres of Mauza Raispur, Pargana Dasna, District
Meerut.

(viii) In Ran Singh's case, basis of the
order was location of land of Sewak Ram and Anoop
Singh situated in village Jatwara Kalan, District
Ghaziabad for development of some colonies,
though notification under Section 4 regarding land of
Jatwara Kalan was issued on 18.06.1962, Section 6
notification was dated 27.10.1964, possession was
taken on 22.12.1964 and the award was declared on
26.06.1967. However, the issues involved in the
present case arise out of acquisition made by the
State of U.P. pursuant to the notifications of other
12 All. Natthan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
79
dates in relation to other land having a different
identity and location, possession whereof was taken
on different dates and award was also made on a
different date.

(ix) Judgment dated 10.01.2002 is based
upon the judgment of Anoop Singh and others, who
had filed First Appeal No. 288 of 1985 against the
decision of Reference Court dated 31.05.1984 in
L.A.Rs No. 376 of 1982 and the said appeal was
decided by this Court on 05.02.1993 awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.84/- per Sq. Yd.
Anoop Singh's case arose from acquisition made by
the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad that had framed
scheme for planned development in relation to
village Jatwara Kalan and the discussion made in the
judgment of the Reference Court as well as this
Court was entirely on different parameters,
particularly, when the Court had found user of the
land acquired for commercial purposes, which is not
the case here.

(x) In Anoop Singh's case, the land
acquired was found to be in close vicinity of Basant
Cinema, Chaudhary Market, Power House, Shops,
Halwara Residential Colony, Chaudhary Hammer
Factory and other commercial properties having
higher value, which is not the case here.

(xi)
Any
adjudication
based
on
suppression or non-disclosure of relevant material
documents and facts would amount to nullity and,
therefore, the decision in Ran Singh's case would not
prejudice rights and contention of C.P.W.D./U.O.I.,
i.e. acquiring body.

(xii) C.P.W.D. has already deposited
compensation in favour of Additional District Judge,
Vth Ghaziabad and the same was disbursed to the
land owners of First Appeal No. 809 of 1993 (Ran
Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and no
parity can be claimed in alive matters.

16. Shri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel has
raised another argument with quite vehemence,
based upon Section 25 read with Section 9 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applicable at the time
of issuance of notifications. He submits that Section
25 provides that when the applicant has made a claim
for compensation pursuant to any notice under
Section 9 of the Act, the award shall not exceed the
amount so claimed nor would it be less than the
amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11
of the Act, however, in case the applicant has refused
or omitted to make such claim, the amount awarded
by the Court shall, in no case, exceed the amount
awarded by the Collector. The contention, therefore,
is that since none of the claimants in these appeals
ever made a claim for enhanced compensation after
S.L.A.O. had declared the award and in pursuance of
notice under Section 9, amount of compensation in
relation to such non-objectors would not exceed
Rs.1.90/- per Sq. Yd. He further submitted that notice
under Section 9 of the Act was issued to all affected
tenure-holders on 20.01.1973 fixing 05.02.1973 as
the date for hearing their objections but none of the
claimants responded to the notice and the award itself
shows that the objections of the tenure-holders other
than the claimants involved in these appeals were
filed and considered. Shri Subodh Kumar, in support
of his argument based upon applicability of Section
25 of the Act, placed reliance upon certain
authorities, reference whereof would come in the
later part of this judgment. The Court may also
observe here that when the appeal was heard by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.05.2017, this
Court passed an order granting adjournment to the
claimants' counsel to prepare the matter in the light
of provisions contained in unamended Section 9 read
with Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act.

17. As regards arguments of Shri Subodh
Kumar in relation to Section 25 of the Act, Shri
Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for tenure
holders vehemently argued that the tenure holders
had filed objections before the S.LA.O and he
specifically referred to Objection No. 4 mentioned in
the award. In this regard, Shri Subodh Kumar
submitted that one of the objectors to the Objection
No. 4 was Ram Kishan Pradhan, who did not object
in relation to the amount of compensation, rather, he
stated that there was a public rasta in certain Khasras,
which should also be acquired. As regards other
objections, though it is mentioned that 56 objections
were filed, Shri Subodh Kumar submits that they
were not in pursuance of the notice issued to the
tenure holders under Section 9 of the Act, rather, the
award specifically mentions that these objections
were filed under Section 5-A of the Act pursuant to
the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.

ANALYSIS OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND
DISCUSSION ON POINTS FOR
DETERMINATION
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

FIRST POINT:

"Whether in view of the judgment/order
of this Court dated 10.01.2002 passed in First Appeal
No. 809 of 1993 (Ran Singh's case) having travelled
upto the Supreme Court, C.P.W.D. and/or U.O.I,
have been left with any say in the matter and can
determination of compensation as Rs.84/- per Sq.
Yd. be set aside/reduced by this Court ignoring
doctrine of merger?"

18. First of all, the Court may observe that Ran
Singh's case was decided on 10.01.2002 against
which State filed Special Leave Petition No. 5022 of
2004 that was rejected on the ground of delay on
19.07.2004 and review also met the same fate. In
view of above, it is apparent that it was the State of
U.P that has lost the matter before the Supreme Court
in terms of dismissal of its S.L.P. on the ground of
delay without granting leave to file appeal and,
hence, the present matter is not being heard and
decided inter se State and tenure holders. Though, it
is true that C.P.W.D./U.O.I. had also approached the
Supreme Court after their review application in Ran
Singh's case was rejected by this Court, the Supreme
Court, while dismissing the S.L.Ps. No. 1620216203 of 2010, clearly observed that the question
whether acquiring body is a necessary party or not,
has not been gone into by the Supreme Court in the
said S.L.Ps. Apparently, dismissal of these S.L.Ps.
was also in view of order dated 19.07.2004 passed in
State's S.L.P., i.e. on the ground of delay. Question
of grant of leave, therefore, did not arise in case of
C.P.W.D./U.O.I. too. For a ready reference, all the
orders passed by the Supreme Court are quoted
hereunder: -

Special Leave Petition No. 5022 of 2004
( U.P. State vs Ran Singh and others), order dated
19.07.2004:

"The special leave petition is dismissed
on the ground of delay."

Review Petition No. 227 of 2005 (U.P.
State vs. Ran Singh and others), order dated
15.02.2005:

" Delay condoned.

We have carefully gone through the
review petition and the annexures thereto. We do not
find any merit in the same. Hence, the review
petition is dismissed."

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No. 16202-16203 of 2010 (Union of India
and another vs. Ran Singh and others) Order dated
18.07.2011:-

" Delay condoned.

The
Special
Leave
Petitions
are
dismissed in view of order dated 19.07.2004 passed
in SLP (C) No. 3022/2004. The question whether the
acquiring body is a necessary party or not is not gone
into in the present SLPs."

(It appears that S.L.P. No. 3022/2004 is
a typographical error. Correct number appears to be
5022 of 2004.)

19. It is, therefore, clear that the Supreme Court
did not examine the effect of non-impleadment of
C.P.W.D./U.O.I. as a party in the proceedings
decided upto the Supreme Court and all the matters,
whether of State or of C.P.W.D./U.O.I. were not
entertained on the ground of delay except that
rejection of Review Petition No. 227 of 2005 filed by
the State is after condoning delay in filing review but
that would not, with due respect, amount to an order
granting leave to file appeal against final order dated
10.01.2002 passed in Ran Singh's case. Ultimately,
the
impleadment
applications
filed
by
C.P.W.D./U.O.I. in the pending proceedings were
allowed, orders to which effect have never been
assailed. Hence, right of hearing in toto has been
given to C.P.W.D./U.O.I.

20. On the question of merger, reliance was
placed by Shri Subodh Kumar on Supreme Court's
judgment in State of U.P. and another vs.
Virendra Bahadur Katheria and others, 2024 (3)
SLJ 1, where doctrine of merger, in a case where
special leave petition was dismissed in limine, was
dealt with in the light of various judicial precedents
and it was held that such a dismissal would not
amount to merger. Relevant paragraphs of Virendra
Bahadur
Katheria
(supra)
are
reproduced
hereunder:-

........(iii) Doctrine of merger is not a
doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will
depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the
superior forum and the content or subject-matter of
challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be
determinative of the applicability of merger. The
12 All. Natthan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
81
superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing,
modifying or affirming the order put in issue before
it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme
Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgmentdecree or order appealed against while exercising its
appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the
discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for
special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can
therefore be applied to the former and not to the
latter.

(iv) An order refusing special leave to
appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking
one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of
merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal
does not stand substituted in place of the order under
challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not
inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the
appeal being filed.

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is
a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the
grant of leave, then the order has two implications.
Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is
a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the
meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution.
Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever
is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the
Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto
and also the court, tribunal or authority in any
proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial
discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of
the country. But, this does not amount to saying that
the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has
stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court
rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the
Supreme Court is the only order binding as res
judicata in subsequent proceedings between the
parties.

(vi) Once leave to appeal has been
granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court
has been invoked the order passed in appeal would
attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of
reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
[Emphasis supplied] "

21. On the question of decision for want of
disclosure of relevant material documents, Shri
Subodh Kumar placed reliance upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P.
and others, AIR 2022 SC 4705, paragraph 21
whereof reads as under:-

"21. This Court, in the case of S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. Vs.
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others (1994) 1 SCC
1, has held that non-disclosure of the relevant and
material documents with a view to obtain an undue
advantage would amount to fraud. It has been held
that the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be
treated as a nullity. We find that respondent No.9 has
not only suppressed a material fact but has also tried
to mislead the High Court. On this ground also, the
present appeal deserves to be allowed."

22. As far as distinguishing features in between
the case of Ran Singh and those involved in the
present appeals are concerned, a bare perusal of the
judgment dated 10.01.2002 passed in Ran Singh's
case would reflect that the said judgment runs on
entirely different facts having no concern with the
present lis. This Court began judgment in Ran
Singh's case with the statement that "the Ghaziabad
Development Authority framed a scheme for
development of the City within the municipal limits
and for that purposes the land of the appellants and of
other persons was acquired" whereas the instant case
has no concern with Ghaziabad Development
Authority nor did the said Authority ever frame any
scheme, rather it was the State of U.P. that acquired
land for the project, namely, 'Central Public Works
Department for constructions of quarters of
Government Employees'. In Ran Singh's case, this
Court described notification under Section 6 of the
Act having been issued on 22.09.1986, whereas, in
the instant case notification under Section 6 was
issued 21 years ago, i.e. on 20.07.1965. In Ran
Singh's case, acquisition was referred to in relation to
the development of two colonies within the
municipal limits of Ghaziabad, whereas, in other
cases the construction of houses for employees of
C.P.W.D. was to be made over 31 acres of Mauza
Sahari, Pargana Loni, District Meerut, 353 acres of
Mauza Harson, Pargana Dasna, district Meerut and
371 acres of Mauza Raispur, Pargana Dasna, District
Meerut. In Ran Singh's case, basis of the order was
location of land of Sewak Ram and Anoop Singh
situated in village Jatwara Kalan, District Ghaziabad
for development of some colonies, though
notification under Section 4 regarding land of
Jatwara Kalan was issued on 18.06.1962, Section 6
notification was dated 27.10.1964, possession was
taken on 22.12.1964 and the award was declared on
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
26.06.1967, whereas the issues involved in the
present case arise out of acquisition made by the
State of U.P. pursuant to the notifications of
altogether different dates in relation to land having a
different identity and location, possession whereof
was taken on different dates and award was also
made on a different date. Judgment in Ran Singh's
case is based upon the judgment of Anoop Singh and
others, who had filed First Appeal No. 288 of 1985
against the decision of Reference Court dated
31.05.1984 in L.A.Rs No. 376 of 1982 and the said
appeal was decided by this Court on 05.02.1993
awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.84/- per Sq.
Yd. Anoop Singh's case arose from acquisition made
by the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad that had
framed scheme for planned development in relation
to village Jatwara Kalan and the discussion made in
the judgment of the Reference Court as well as this
Court was entirely on different parameters. In Anoop
Singh's case, the land acquired was found to be in
close vicinity of Basant Cinema, Chaudhary Market,
Power House, Shops, Halwara Residential Colony,
Chaudhary Hammer Factory and other commercial
properties having higher value, which is not the case
here.

23. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is
not deciding a review application against the order
dated 10.01.2002 but, at the same time, since
C.P.W.D./U.O.I. were not parties to the lis
culminating into the order dated 10.01.2002, the
contentions raised by them, pursuant to their
impleadment in the light of order of Supreme Court
in S.L.Ps. filed by C.P.W.D./U.O.I., cannot be shut
down or given a go by and effect of order dated
10.01.2002 on matters not decided by then or
thereafter has to be seen, particularly inter se
C.P.W.D./U.O.I. and tenure holders looking at all
aspects involved. This is also for the reason that
doctrine or merger would not apply in this case and
the points that were not raised by the State of U.P.
nor could it be raised by it, cannot be restricted to be
raised by the acquiring body, i,.e, C.P.W.D./U.O.I.

24. The first point, therefore, is decided in
favour of C.P.W.D./U.O.I. holding that the
adjudication made by this Court in Ran Singh's case
would not amount to merger or confirmation of this
Court's judgment dated 10.01.2002 in the Supreme
Court's orders, at least affecting or prejudicing any
right of acquiring body, i.e. C.P.W.D./U.O.I., to get
the determination of compensation as Rs.84/- per Sq.
Yd. Set aside/reduced.

SECOND POINT:

"Whether the tenure holders having not
raised a claim pursuant to notice issued under section
9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as it then
existed, they are, at all, entitled for any amount over
and above the one awarded by the S.L.A.O. in view
of bar contained in section 25?"

25. Now coming to the arguments based upon
Sections 9 and 25 of the Act of 1894 as existing at
the time of issuance of notifications giving rise to
these cases, it would be signifiant to note that the said
aspect has remained untouched in Ran Singh's
matter. It is apt to quote the said provisions for a
ready reference:-

"9. Notice to persons interested- (1)
The Collector shall then cause public notice to be
given at convenient places on or near the land to be
taken, stating that the Government intends to take
possession of the land, and that claims to
compensation for all interests in such land may be
made to him.

(2) Such notice shall state the particulars
of the land so needed, and shall require all persons
interested in the land to appear personally or by agent
before the Collector at a time and place therein
mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen
days after the date of publication of the notice), and
to state the nature of their respective interests in the
land and the amount and particulars of their claims to
compensation for such interests, and their objections
(if any) to the measurements made under Section 8.
The Collector may in any case require such statement
to be made in writing and signed by the party or his
agent.

(3) The Collector shall also serve notice
to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such
land and on all such persons known or believed to be
interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons
so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to
receive service on their behalf, within the revenue
district in which the land is situate.

(4) In case any person so interested
resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice
shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to
12 All. Natthan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83
him at his last known residence, address or place of
business and registered under Part III of the Indian
Post Office Act, 1866."

"25.
Rules
as
to
amount
of
compensation- (1) When the applicant has made a
claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given
under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the
Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be
less than the amount awarded by the Collector under
Section 11.

(2) When the applicant has refused to
make such claim or has omitted without sufficient
reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such
claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no
case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

(3) When the applicant has omitted for a
sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to
make such claim the amount awarded to him by the
Court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the
amount awarded by the Collector."

26. It has been found in these matters that the
objector in the Objection No. 4 was one Ram Kishan
Pradhan, who did not object in relation to the amount
of compensation, rather, he stated that there was a
public rasta in certain Khasras, which should also be
acquired. As regards other objections, though it is
mentioned that 56 objections were filed, the Court
finds that they were not in pursuance of notice issued
under Section 9 of the Act, rather, the same were
under Section 5-A of the Act.