# Naunihal Singh v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 284 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-01-24 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52064 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naunihal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40345 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India- Articles 226 and 300 A-read with Land Acquisition Act- Ss 4 and 6- Acquisition of land by State- Non payment of compensation even after award due to pancity of funds-violative of Article 300 A-Direction issued that either land must be returned to petitioner by forthwith or compensation awarded should be paid to petitioner or petitioner and other tenure holder within two months example cost of Rs.100000/- awarded. Held- Para 7 We therefore direct that either the possession of land must be returned forthwith to the petitioner or else the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Act in the award in question dated 24.1.2002 shall be paid in full to the petitioner and other tenure holders within two months from today. Apart from that the State Government shall also pay exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00000/- to the petitioner for its high handedness, and this amount shall also be paid within two months to the petitioner. ## Text 284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 different villages in one instrument by one owner is prohibited under law. My attention has not been drawn to any such law that in case registration was made by an owner for his property situated in two villages, it will lead to any illegality. Once it is not forbidden by any law, it is permissible and it cannot be called in question merely on the basis of Note-2 which itself has been held not consistent with the provisions of the Stamp Rules and the Act. 12. In the light of the above, I would revert to scan the impugned order again. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would transpire that the S.D.O. concerned proceeded to pass the impugned order merely on being so directed on the complaint of one Kishan Lal Sahu and on the basis of report dated 24.4.1999 submitted by the Deputy Registrar II and no proper enquiry was made nor it appears from the record that there was any material direct, circumstantial or even intrinsic evidence on the basis of which a reasonable belief could be formed that the instrument has been undervalued in observance of Rules 3 and 4 of the Stamp Rules and Section 47 A of the Stamp Act. The authority concerned appears to have heavily relied upon Note-2 of the impugned order and on a punctilious reading of the Note-2, proceeded to pass the impugned order in utter disregard of the mandate contained in Rules 4 (1) (a) (i) to (iv) or 5 of the Stamp Rules, 1997 in which condition precedent was the proximity of land to road, market, bus station railway station, factories, educational institutions, hospitals and government offices, classification of soil and availability irrigation facility etc. It would also appear that the S.D.O. concerned proceeded on the report of Sub Registrar without making enquiry and recording of finding based on any verifiable evidence. By this reckoning, the impugned order is liable to be quashed as it has been passed without affording fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also that his opinion based on the report of Sub Registrar without there being any other verifiable evidence, material direct, circumstantial or even intrinsic evidence to form a reasonable belief. In view of the above, Note-2 of the order dated 3.8.1997 is also held to be not consistent with the Act and the Rules and being in antagonism with the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 besides being arbitrary and discriminatory, is unsustainable. 13. As a result of foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.12.1999 and 3.6.2002 and the Note-2 contained in the order-dated 3.8.1997 are quashed. In consequence, it is held that stamp duty paid by the petitioner was sufficient. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD: 10.3.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52064 of 2003 Naunihal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Naunihal Singh V. State of U.P. and others 285 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.C. Sinha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.K. Saxena, S.C. Constitution of India- Articles 226 and 300 A-read with Land Acquisition Act- Ss 4 and 6- Acquisition of land by State- Non payment of compensation even after award due to pancity of funds-violative of Article 300 A-Direction issued that either land must be returned to petitioner by forthwith or compensation awarded should be paid to petitioner or petitioner and other tenure holder within two months example cost of Rs.100000/- awarded. Held- Para 7 We therefore direct that either the possession of land must be returned forthwith to the petitioner or else the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Act in the award in question dated 24.1.2002 shall be paid in full to the petitioner and other tenure holders within two months from today. Apart from that the State Government shall also pay exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00000/- to the petitioner for its high handedness, and this amount shall also be paid within two months to the petitioner. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In case after case, which is coming up of before us, we find that a citizen's land has been acquired or simply taken over without paying him compensation. This is highly improper, and in fact violative of Article 300A of the Constitution. 3. In the present case the petitioner is a farmer whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was given on 24.2.2002, but it is alleged that as yet the compensation has not been paid vide para 10 of the petition. 4. The compensation awarded is Rs. 36,93,260.85 paise calculated upto August, 2002. Nothing has been paid to the petitioner as yet although land acquisition proceedings started in 1999. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition that possession was illegally taken about 22 years ago. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Engineer on behalf of the respondents it is stated in para 6 that in pursuance of the award dated 24.1.2001 an amount of Rs. 5,50000/- has been deposited with the S.L.A.O., Mathura for payment of the compensation to the tenure holder whose land was acquired but due to paucity of fund the remaining amount could not be paid by the Irrigation Department, and representations have been made to the State Govt. in this connection. Even this amount of Rs.5.50 lacs has not been paid to the petitioner, and he has been made to run from ----- to post. 6. In our opinion the excuse that the respondent has paucity of funds cannot be accepted. If land is to be acquired then prompt compensation must be paid. The State Govt. is expected to set high standards of fairness, but we find in case after case coming up before us that either the compensation is not paid for the land which is acquired, or else possession is taken without even following the procedure in the Land Acquisition Act, http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 i.e. without issuing notification under Sections 4 or 6. 7. We therefore direct that either the possession of land must be returned forthwith to the petitioner or else the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Act in the award in question dated 24.1.2002 shall be paid in full to the petitioner and other tenure holders within two months from today. Apart from that the State Government shall also pay exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00000/- to the petitioner for its high handedness, and this amount shall also be paid within two months to the petitioner. 8. With the above observation this petition is allowed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. First Appeal No. 879 of 1995 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ...Appellant Versus Deshraj and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri U.S. Awasthi Sri Ajay Kumar Misra Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Subhashish Banerji Sri Raj Singh Sri Akilesh Singh Land Acquisition Act-Ss. 4, 6 and 17 (4)- Acquisition of land-Award-Determination of Compensation-SLAO determined compensation on basis of sale deed in respect of plat of neighbouring villageReference Court enhanced compensation by relying on award of another villagePotentialities of land were differentHeld, award on sale transactions of other villages should not ordinarily be relied upon-Moreover exemplars of small plots of land should not be taken into consideration when a large area of land is being acquired. Held: Para 10 & 11 Thus the settled position in law appears to be that the award or sale transaction of other villages should not ordinarily be relied upon. Moreover it is well settled that exemplars of small plots of land should not be taken into consideration when a large area of land is being acquired Case law discussed: AIR 1992 SC 666 (1998) 8 SCC 136 JT 1997 (4) SC 112 1995 HVD (1) P.191 (Pr. 11,17) F.A. No. 522 of 1993, decided on 26.2.2004 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and the connected appeals are being disposed off by a common judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. First Appeal No. 879 of 95 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1993 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in LAR No. 511 of 1990. 3. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment. By the judgment and http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in