# NOIDA v. Deshraj and others - **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 286 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-01-24 - **Case number:** First Appeal No. 879 of 1995 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/noida-v-deshraj-and-others-40347 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote 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 ## Text 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 1 All] NOIDA V. Deshraj and others 287 decree dated 23.11.1993 37 references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act had been disposed off. The total area of the land acquired was 184.19 bighas i.e. 115.562 acres. The date of notification under Section 4 (1) as last published was 27.4.1988. The date of notification under Section 4 (1) as last published was 27.4.1988. The date of notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 (4) is 6.7.1988. The date of taking over possession of the land in dispute was 28.3.1990 and the date of the award of the S.L.A.O is 17.8.1990. 4. Eight sale deeds were executed in the last three years in respect of the village in question i.e. Village Parthala Khanjarpur, NOIDA, Ghaziabad. The highest rate at which these 8 sale deeds were executed was Rs.7.83 per sq. yard. However, the S.L.A.O. determined compensation on the basis of the sale deed dated 22.7.1987 in respect of khasra no. 643 of 504 sq. yards in respect of neighbouring village Sorakha at the rate of Rs.30.75 per sq. yard. This sale deed was in respect of a plot of an area of 504 sq. yard of village Sorakha. 5. The reference court found that there existed no sale exemplar filed by the claimants which could be held to be comparable in nature, time and proximity justifying enhancement and hence it rightly rejected all the sale exemplars. However, the reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.72/- per sq. yard by relying on the award of another village Makanpur which was not even the neighbouring village and the potentialities of the land were different. 6. In our opinion the court below erred in relying on the award in respect of village Manakpur which is not even the neighbouring village when the sale deed of that very village i.e. village Partala Khanjarpur for which the acquisition in question was made was available. 7. In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acquisition vs. Smt. A Mangala Gowri, AIR 1992 SC 666, the Supreme Court held that in determining the market value of the land reliance should not be placed on the award of some other land. The same view was taken in Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India, 1998 (8 SCC 136). 8. In our opinion the judgment of the court below is patently illegal as it relied on an award of a different village which was not even a neighbouring village vide Jai Prakash vs. Union of India, JT 1997 (4) SC 112. 9. Thus the settled position in law appears to be that the award or sale transaction of other villages and sale transaction in respect of other villages should be ignored. 10. Thus the settled position in law appears to be that the award or sale transaction of other villages should not ordinarily be relied upon. 11. 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 vide Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Khushi Ram, First Appeal No. 522 of 1993 decided on 26.2.2004. In the aforesaid decision relevant decisions of the Supreme Court have also been referred. 12. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed. The impugned http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 judgment of the court below dated 23.11.1993 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for a fresh decision in accordance with law. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.3.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10541 of 1990 Sansthapak Mandal, G.B. Pant Degree College and another ...Petitioners Versus The Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies & Chits Gorakhpur & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.B. Singh Sri P.S. Baghel Sri S.K. Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Dr. R.G. Padia Sri Prakash Padia Sri S.P. Singh Sri D.S.N. Tripathi Sri P.N. Tripathi Sri P.C. Srivastava Sri Dinesh Dwivedi S.C. Societies Registration Act-S.-25- Death of founder President of Society-Dispute as to President ship of Sansthapak Mandal of Society-Appointment of respondent no. 2 as President of SocietyWrit Petition challenging appointmentHeld, dispute with regard to electionquestion of President of Sanshthapak Mandal must be decided by Prescribed Authority under S.25 of the Act-Direction issued to Assistant Registrar to refer dispute to Prescribed Authority. Held: Para 32 In such, circumstances, the dispute with regard to the election on the post of President of the Sansthapak Mandal should necessarily be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the said dispute for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and the Prescribed Authority in turn shall decide the dispute within four months thereafter, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.) 1. Heard Sri P.S. Baghel on behalf of the petitioner, Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P. Padia, Sri D.S.N. Tripathi and Sri P.C. Srivastava on behalf of the respondent Anil Kumar Upadhyaya in both the writ petitions. 2. The dispute giving rise to this case has a checkered history. The relevant fact for decision of dispute are as follows:- 3. One Sri Bateshwar Nath Upadhyaya was the founder President of the society registered by name of Sansthapak Mandal, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. There was absolutely no dispute with regard to the office bearer of the said society till the life time of Sri Bateshwar Nath Upathdyaya, who was life President of the society, expired in the year, 1986. On death of Sri Upadhyaya, the petitioner Sri Arun Kumar Upadhyaya, who claims himself to be one of the life member of the society, has set up his claim as President of the society. On the other hand Sri Anil Kumar Upadhyaya respondent no. 2 claims that in accordance with the registered bye laws http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in