# Roop Narain & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 382 of 2016
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roop-narain-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52630
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

10 All. Roop Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1147
objections dated 05.12.2015. It is manifest
that
such
allegations
against
the
Respondent/husband did not constitute the
subject matter of the dispute which led to
the filing of the petition under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein
the husband sought divorce. In reply
thereto, the appellant / wife filed a written
statement denying all allegations. The wife,
however, made certain averments disputing
the locus of the Respondent/husband by
contending that a person himself indulged
in
an
adulterous
relationship
cannot
maintain a petition on the ground of
adultery.

23. It is pertinent to observe that the
stand taken by the appellant / wife could
have afforded her a valid ground to seek
dissolution
of
marriage
against
her
husband. However, in the present case, she
has neither instituted a petition for divorce
nor filed any Counter-Claim to that effect.
Instead, she has instituted a proceeding
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 which is pending before the Family
Court, Lucknow.

24. Accordingly, the allegation of
adulterous
relationship
between
the
respondent / husband and Km. Seema
Rawat cannot be taken as an issue for
adjudication
in
the
pending
divorce
proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 instituted by the
respondent / husband. Consequently, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
prayer of the appellant / wife seeking
framing of additional issues in respect of
the alleged adultery on the part of the
respondent / husband has been rightly
rejected by the learned Court below.

25. Therefore, in view of the above,
the Impugned Order dated 07.07.2025
passed by the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court- 8, District- Lucknow,
rejecting the Application of the appellant /
wife, filed under Order XIV Rules 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, in Divorce Petition
having H. M. No. 13 of 2016, 'Dr. Atul
Bharti versus Dr. Madhu Singh' calls for no
interference by this Court and the same is
hereby affirmed.

26. Accordingly, the present appeal
stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1147
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 382 of 2016

Roop Narain & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ajeet Kumar, Hari Shanker Tripathi, M.P.
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C., Sushil Kumar Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to get
compensation for his acquired land on the basis
of highest market value reflected in the
exemplar?
2. Whether the acquired land of the appellant
was degraded, barren, low lying and unirrigated?
3. Whether the reference court has awarded the
correct
amount
of
compensation
to
the
appellant for his acquired land?

HEADNOTES
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Section - 4(1), 6(1) 28, 54:- Appeal under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act - filed by
the land owner - challenging the award and
decree - whereby for the land acquired for
construction of a 220 KV Sub Power-station -
compensation at the rate of ₹26,624/- per bigha
was awarded by the Collector - determination of
market value based on exemplars - principle of
highest bona fide exemplar applied (Mehrawal
Khewaji
Trust,
Manohar)
-
deduction
permissible for large tract vis-à-vis small plot
(Horrmal) - dispute regarding fertility versus
degradation of land due to brick kiln - statutory
benefits of solatium, additional compensation
and interest considered - restriction on interest
imposed owing to dismissal/restoration of
appeal - held that although the exemplar in
question related to a small plot, it was the
highest bona fide transaction and must govern
compensation - applying maximum 50%
deduction for large tract comparability, the
market value was fixed at ₹17,062.50 per biswa,
with statutory benefits of 30% solatium, 12%
additional
compensation
per
annum,
and
interest under Section 28 - compensation for
well, house and fruit trees awarded by the
Collector upheld - Reference Court's award set
aside - appeal allowed - interest on enhanced
amount denied for the period between 2007 and
2016 due to dismissal and restoration - costs
made easy and decree directed accordingly.
(Para - 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot
v. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432
Manohar & Others v. State of Maharashtra
(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1519)
Shaji Kuriakose & Anr v. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 650
Horrmal (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. State
of Haryana & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2990)

LIST OF ACTS
Land Acquisition Act, 1894

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Exemplars /
Sale deeds - Highest market value - Deduction
(small plot vs. large tract) - Fertile vs. degraded
land - Brick kiln dispute - Solatium (30%) -
Additional compensation (12% per annum) -
Interest restriction - Reference Court error -
Enhanced compensation.

CASE ARISING FROM
Original acquisition - of 30.340 acres in Village
Natwa, Tehsil Kantit, District Mirzapur for
construction of 220 KV sub-station by U.P. State
Electricity Board - Collector's award dated
28.09.1993 fixed compensation at ₹26,624 per
bigha - Appellant's land: 6 bigha 2 biswa, with
well, house, and fruit trees.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Ajeet Kumar, Hari
Shanker Tripathi, M P Srivastava,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Sushil Kumar
Pandey & SC.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been
filed by the land owner challenging the
award and decree dated 08.08.2007 passed
by the Court of Shri B.D.Verma, Special
Judge E.C. Act, Mirzapur in L.A.R. No.9
of 1996, Roop Narain(Deceased) through
LR's and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, whereby for the land acquired in
Village Natwa, Pargana and Tehsil Kantit,
District Mirzapur for constructing a 220
KV sub-station of the U.P. State Electricity
Board, compensation at the rate of Rs.
26,624/- per bigha, awarded by the
Collector vide award dated 28.09.1993 was
upheld.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated
are that for constructing a 220 KV substation of the U.P. State Electricity Board,
30.340 acres land was acquired in Village
Natwa, Pargana and Tehsil Kantit, District
Mirzapur. The notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was
issued on 19.03.1991, a declaration under
Section 6(1) of the Act was made on
10 All. Roop Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1149
27.09.1991, the possession of the acquired
land was taken on 03.02.1993, the award of
the Collector was made on 28.09.1993.

3. The appellant's land measuring 6
bigha 2 biswa was acquired for which he
was awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs. 26,624/- per bigha, for a well situated
on the land, he was paid compensation of
Rs.3,076/-, for a house standing on the
acquired land, he was paid compensation of
Rs. 13,600/- and for three mango and one
aonla tree standing on the acquired land, he
was paid compensation of Rs. 10,680/-, in
all the appellant was paid compensation of
Rs. 2,49,919.92 paise for his acquired land.
Besides this, the appellant was also paid
statutory benefits i.e. solatium at the rate of
30%, additional compensation at the rate of
12 % per annum and statutory interest
admissible under the Act.

4. Before the Collector there were 21
exemplars, which were executed within
three years prior to the date of notification
under section 4 (1) of the Act. The
Collector determined the compensation of
the acquired land on the basis of exemplar
dated 21.03.1988, regarding land no. 204,
wherein an area of 0-6-0 bigha having
circle rate of Rs.1.25 which was executed
by Jhaggad son of Sheetal in favour of
Prem Nath Yadav. The Collector opined
that this exemplar reflected the true market
value of the acquired land because the land
sold in the exemplar and the acquired land
were proximate, the quality of soil was
similar and also the acquired land was lowlying. On the basis of this exemplar,
compensation at the rate of ₹ 58,666/- per
bigha for Pallo - 1 land was determined.
Since, the land was degraded because a
brick kiln was situated on it, hence, the
collector made deduction of 25% to 35%
from the above compensation. Besides that,
the well, house and fruit trees were
assessed separately. Aggrieved against the
collector's award, the land owner preferred
a reference.

5. Before the reference court Mulloor
was examined as PW-1, appellant Roop
Narain was examined as PW-2, Anand
Prasad Ameen was examined as PW-3.
PW-1 and PW-2 proved (1) exemplar dated
20.04.1988, 0-4-0 bigha area, consideration
of Rs. 1,36,500/-, (2) exemplar dated
23.11.1988, 0-2-0 bigha consideration of
Rs.
50,000/-,
(3)
exemplar
dated
24.01.1991, 0-4-10 bigha consideration of
Rs. 1,12,500/-.

6. The respondents examined DW-1
Saiyad Rahat Raza, Ameen and DW-2,
Lalai Ram.

7. The reference court vide impugned
award and decree rejected the claim of the
appellant
for
enhancement
of
the
compensation on the ground that the
exemplars relied on by the claimant are not
relevant because they are situated adjoining
to a road and in some of the plots, office
have been constructed and also the land of
those exemplars was not degraded. The
reference court concluded that the land
owner has not produced the khasra of the
acquired land, as such, it was not known
whether the acquired land was fertile
agricultural land, and was plane. The
reference court opined that the acquired
land was low-lying, uneven and degraded
because soil was dug out for manufacturing
bricks in a brick kiln, which was situated
nearby. The reference court concluded that
the land owner was not entitled to enhanced
compensation, aggrieved against which, the
land owner is in appeal before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the land
owner/appellant submitted that the land
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
owner had adduced three exemplars dated
20.04.1988, 23.11.1988 and 24.01.1991,
before the reference court, which pertained
to land measuring 4 biswa, 2 biswa, 4
biswa 10 biswansi, respectively, as per
which, land was sold for consideration of
Rs.1,36,500/-,
50,000/-,
1,12,500/-,
according to which the transaction took
place at the rate of Rs. 34,125/-, 25,000/-
and Rs. 25,000/- per biswa but the
Collector has only awarded compensation
@ Rs.26,624/- per bigha, which is wholly
inadequate.

9. Learned counsel further submitted
that appellants land situated in 7 gatas was
acquired, which was fertile plane land,
which was irrigated, as such, there was no
evidence on record to presume that brick
kiln was operated on the acquired land ,
which was degraded and low lying.

10. Learned counsel further submitted
that the appellant was entitled to get the
highest market value, on which, the land
was sold proximate to the date of
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act,
but the Collector has only awarded
compensation on the basis of exemplar
dated 21.03.1988, which denotes the lowest
price.

11. Learned counsel further submitted
that a well, house and four fruit bearing
trees were also situated on the acquired
land for which inadequate compensation
was paid by the Collector.

12. Per contra, learned Additional
Standing Counsel submitted that the
Collector has determined the correct
amount of compensation on the basis of
exemplar
dated
21.03.1988.
Learned
counsel further submitted that the acquired
land was degraded, low lying, barren and
infertile regarding which compensation
cannot be determined on the basis of
exemplars dated 20.04.1988, 23.11.1988
and 24.01.1991.

13. Learned counsel further submitted
that the above referred exemplars were of
very small area whereas, the acquired land
of the appellant was 6 bigha 2 biswa, which
was not at all comparable with the land
transaction that took place in the above
mentioned exemplars, as such, the above
referred exemplars cannot be the basis for
awarding enhanced compensation to the
appellant.

14. Learned counsel further submitted
that the appellant has been awarded correct
amount of compensation for a well, house
and fruit trees situated on his land because
no contrary evidence was adduced by the
land owner.

15. Learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that the burden lies upon the
appellant to prove the nature of the
acquired land, which he failed to prove
because the certified copy of the khasra
was not produced by the appellant before
the reference court or the Collector, as
such, there was no contrary evidence to
arrive at a conclusion that no brick kiln was
situated on the acquired land. With these
submissions, it was prayed that the appeal
is merit less and be dismissed.

16. I have heard the learned counsel
for both the parties and perused the record.

17. On the basis of the arguments of
the learned counsel for the parties, the
following issues arise for determination
before this Court:-

(i) Whether the appellant was
entitled to get compensation for his
10 All. Roop Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1151
acquired land on the basis of highest
market value reflected in the exemplar?

(ii) Whether the acquired land of
the appellant was degraded, barren, low
lying and un-irrigated ?

(iii) Whether the reference court
has awarded the correct amount of
compensation to the appellant for his
acquired land?

18. The Apex Court in the case of
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust(Registered),
Faridkot and Others vs. State of Punjab
and others (2012) 5 SCC 432, while
considering the applicability of exemplars
in
awarding
compensation
in
land
acquisition cases, held as under:-

"14. As pointed out above, the
Reference Court failed to take note of the
highest
exemplar,
namely,
the
sale
transaction under Ext. A-61 dated 22-71977. In this regard, it is useful to refer the
decision
of
this
Court
in
M.
Vijayalakshmamma
Rao
Bahadur
v.
Collector of Madras [(1969) 1 MLJ 45
(SC)] . In this case, this Court has held thus
: (MLJ pp. 46-47)

" where sale deeds pertaining to
different transactions are relied on behalf
of the Government, that representing the
highest value should be preferred to the
rest unless there are strong circumstances
justifying a different course. In any case we
see no reason why an average of two sale
deeds should have been taken in this case."

15. In State of Punjab v. Hans
Raj [(1994) 5 SCC 734] this Court has held
that method of working out the "average
price"
paid
under
different
sale
transactions is not proper and that one
should not have, ordinarily recourse to
such method. This Court further held that
the bona fide sale transactions proximate
to the point of acquisition of the lands
situated in the neighbourhood of the
acquired lands are the real basis to
determine the market value.

16. This Court in Anjani Molu
Dessai v. State of Goa [(2010) 13 SCC 710
: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 788] , after relying
upon the earlier decisions of this Court in
M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur and
Hans Raj held in para 20 as under :( SCC
p. 715)

"20. The legal position is that
even where there are several exemplars
with reference to similar lands, usually the
highest of the exemplars, which is a bona
fide transaction, will be considered."

Again, in para 23, it was held
that "the averaging of the prices under the
two sale deeds was not justified."

17. It is clear that when there are
several exemplars with reference to similar
lands, it is the general rule that the highest
of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a
bona fide transaction, has to be considered
and accepted. When the land is being
compulsorily taken away from a person, he
is entitled to the highest value which
similar land in the locality is shown to have
fetched in a bona fide transaction entered
into between a willing purchaser and a
willing seller near about the time of the
acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only
fair that where sale deeds pertaining to
different transactions are relied on behalf
of
the
Government,
the
transaction
representing the highest value should be
preferred to the rest unless there are strong
circumstances justifying a different course.
It is not desirable to take an average of
various sale deeds placed before the
authority/court
for
fixing
fair
compensation.

18.
Based
on
the
above
principles, the market value as per Ext. A61 dated 22-7-1977 was Rs 1,39,130.43 per
acre (approx. Rs 1.40 lakhs per acre). The
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said sale deed was two-and-a-half years
prior in time than Section 4(1) Notification
dated 22-12-1979. There is no reason to
eschew the above sale transaction. It is
also pointed out that the lands covered
under Ext. A-61 are nearer to the lands of
the appellants under acquisition."

19. This principle of law has been
reiterated recently by the Apex Court in the
case of Manohar and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1519, in which it was held as
under:-

"46.
It
was
sought
to
be
contended by the learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 3 (MIDC) that the
Reference Court has rightly used the
principle of averaging of sale price of sale
exemplars at Sr. No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for
determination of market value of acquired
land. However, it is clear from a reading of
paragraph 20 of the judgment of this Court
in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State
of Goa & Another (2010) 13 SCC 710 that
the legal position is that even where there
are several exemplars with reference to
similar lands, usually the highest of the
exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction
will be considered. Further, only where
there are several sales of similar lands
whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth,
the average thereof can be taken, as
representing the market price. The said
position of law was reiterated in the
judgment of this Court in the cases of
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra) and
Mohammad Yusuf & Others vs. State of
Haryana & Others (2018) 16 SCC 105.

47. Even in the case of Major
General Kapil Mehra & Others vs. UOI &
Another (2015) 2 SCC 262, relied upon by
the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3
(MIDC), it has been held that where there
are several sales of similar lands, more or
less, at the same time, whose prices have
marginal variation, averaging thereof is
permissible.
48. The position of law being thus and
further on account of the fact that the lands
acquired in the present case are in a prime
location, we are of the considered opinion
that no occasion arose for the Reference
Court to deviate from the well-settled
position of law and that the claimants/
Appellants deserve the benefit of the
highest sale exemplar dated 31st March
1990. Not only that but in the event, the
values of the sale instances taken into
consideration by the Reference Court had a
"marginal variation", averaging thereof
would have been permissible. But the sale
exemplars taken into consideration by the
Reference Court, in the present case, were
the ones from Sr. Nos. 1 to 6 and they
ranged from Rs. 25,000/- per Acre to Rs.
72,900/- per Acre. In such a case, the
averaging
thereof
was
clearly
not
permissible."

20. As per the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the above cases of
Mehrawal Khewaji (supra) and Manohar
(supra), the land owner is entitled to the
highest value which similar land in the
locality is shown to have fetched in a bona
fide transaction entered near about the time
of the acquisition. It is not desirable to take
an average of various sale deeds placed
before
the
Court
for
fixing
fair
compensation.

21. The Apex Court in the case of
Shaji Kuriakose And Anr vs Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd. And Ors, (2001) 7 SCC 650
has held that compensation on the basis of
exemplars
is
to
be
determined
by
considering the following factors:- (1) The
transaction must be a genuine transaction,
10 All. Roop Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1153
(2) the transaction should be approximate
to the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, (3) the land sold
must be situated in the vicinity of the
acquired land, (4) the sold land and the
acquired land must be similar in nature, (5)
the size of plots should also be comparable.

22. It is also well settled that prices
fetched for small plots cannot form the
basis for valuation of large tract of land as
the two are not comparable properties.

23. Mulloor PW-1 deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he sold his land
measuring four biswa on 20.04.1988 to
Ram Lal for consideration of Rs.1,36,500/-.
His land was low lying, which was
adjoining to the acquired land of Roop
Narain. The acquired land was better than
his land, which was plane. His land was
situated within the boundaries of Nagar
Palika, which was abadi land, his land was
used for manufacturing bricks, which had a
pit. Roop Narain's acquired land was
situated near abadi and was adjoining to a
road, in which mahua, mango and aonla
trees were standing, there was also a well, a
house which was 30-35 years old, in which
vegetables were grown at the time of
acquisition. Roop Narain's land was valued
higher than his land. Roop Narain had a
total of 9.5 bigha land out of which about 6
bigha was acquired. He has filed the copy
of the sale deed which is paper no.34-C.

24.
In
cross-examination
PW-1
deposed that towards south of his land a
brick kiln was in operation which obtained
soil from the adjoining lands. From the
Roop Narain's well, his field was also
irrigated. He denied the suggestion that
Roop Narain's land was having a pit.

25. Roop Narain PW-2 deposed in his
examination-in-chief
that
his
land
measuring 6-2-0 bigha situated in village
Natwa was acquired by the State in the year
1990-91 for constructing power house. He
had a total of 9.5 bigha land, which was
fertile, in which wheat, arhar, tomato, etc.
were sown, which were irrigated from the
well by the help of a machine. Towards
north of his acquired land, there was a
pucca road which goes from Mirzapur to
Allahabad.
His
acquired
land
was
surrounded by abadi, carpet manufacturing
factories were also situated nearby. His
acquired land was plane, which was not
having any pit. Mulloor's land was at a
distance of 10-15 lattha from his land. At
the time of acquisition, his land was
cropped, which were ruined by the
government,
regarding
which
no
compensation was paid to him. At the time
of acquisition, land was sold @ of Rs.
30,000-40,000 per biswa. His segregated
land was not suitable for cultivation which
was valued at Rs. 2,000-4,000 per biswa.
Four mango, one aonla and one mahua fruit
bearing trees were standing on his land in
which his house in an area of 50x12 foot
was also constructed, his well was 65 feet
deep which was having circumference of
10 feet, which was constructed at a cost of
Rs.50,000/-.The State has awarded less
compensation than the prevailing market
value.

26.
PW-2
in
cross-examination
admitted that a brick kiln used to operate
adjoining his acquired land. He used to
supply water to the nearby land owners for
irrigation. The soil of his land was not
taken by the brick kiln because he objected.
He also admitted that when his land was
acquired it was a field in which there was
no abadi, which was not uneven. He denied
the suggestion that he had given his land to
the brick kiln and vegetables and crops
were not sown on his land.
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. Anand Prasad former Ameen PW3 deposed in his examination-in-chief that
he inspected the land on 22.04.2000 at 2:30
pm which was about 10 kms. from
Mirzapur.

28. Syed Rahat Raza DW-1 deposed in
examination-in-chief that the Collector
determined compensation on the basis of
sale deed of land no.204, which was similar
to the acquired land. The acquired land of
claimant was at a distance of about 100 feet
from the road and the land nearby, was
uneven and having pits because of a brick
kiln which was in operation nearby. There
was no abadi near the acquired land. The
acquired land was uneven.

29.
DW-1
in
cross-examination
admitted that at the time of acquisition he
was not posted at Mirzapur. He arrived in
Mirzapur in July, 1998 from Ghazipur, as
such, he was not aware about the condition
of the acquired land prior to his arrival. The
acquired land was at a distance of about
100-125 feet towards south of the road,
which goes to Allahabad, which was in
existence since 30-40 years. Towards east
of the acquired land, there was a road
which goes to Cheel via Mirzapur. There
was scattered abadi of 20-25 houses.
Towards south of the acquired land, there
was no abadi. There were 2-4 shops selling
tea and betel. He admitted that in a portion
of the acquired land, there was a pucca
constructed single-storeyed house. The
acquired land was within Nagar Palika
area.

30. Lalai Ram DW-2 deposed in
examination-in-chief that Roop Narain's
land was situated in 7 gatas, out of which,
land of two and three gatas was in clusters,
which were not adjacent. The remaining
land was also separately situated in two
gatas, not adjoining to each other. Roop
Narain's land was not situated adjoining to
a road, which had no access. Roop Narain
had given his land to the brick kiln and due
to the extraction of soil, his land had
become uneven. He admitted that there was
a well and one room on Roop Narain's land
which was constructed by the brick kiln. At
the time of acquisition by the Electricity
Department, the land was valued at
Rs.40,000-55,000 per bigha which had
become degraded and uneven due to the
extraction of soil by the brick kiln. He
admitted that prior to acquisition, Roop
Narain used to sow arhar, millets(bajra) and
sorghum(jawari).

31.
In
cross-examination
DW-2
deposed that his land was also acquired by
the Electricity Department and in lieu of it,
he was provided employment and due to
this, he didn't file a case. Roop Narain's
land consisted of 7 gatas, which was
acquired by the Electricity Department in
the year 1994. His land, Roop Narain's land
and other people's land were acquired by
the brick kiln. Roop Narain's father used to
harvest tomatoes from the acquired land.
They are five brothers but only he has been
provided employment. No house was
situated adjoining to Roop Narain's land.

32. Before the Reference Court the
claimant proved the following exemplars:-

S.No
.
Sale deed
dated
Area
of
land
sold

Total
Considerati
on Rs.

Considera
tion
per
biswa Rs.

1
20.04.198
8
0-40
bigh
a

1,36,500/-
34,125/-
2
23.11.198
8
0-20
bigh
a
50,000/-
25,000/-
10 All. Roop Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1155
3
24.01.199
1
0-410
bigh
a
1,12,500/-
25,000/-

33. From the evidence of Mulloor PW1 it is evident that he had sold his land
measuring 4 biswa on 20.04.1988 for
consideration of Rs. 1,36,500/- which was
low lying, which was adjoining to Roop
Narain's acquired land, Roop Narain's
acquired land was in better condition
because it was plane and irrigated, which
was not having pits and was also not
degraded due to extraction of soil by brick
kilns. It is also proved that the acquired
land was used for agricultural purposes in
which fruit trees were standing and
seasonal vegetables were harvested. PW-1
specifically admitted that his land was used
by brick kiln for extraction of soil. This
witness denied the suggestion that Roop
Narain's land was having pits. The certified
copy of the above sale deed dated
20.04.1988 was also available on the record
of the Reference Court which mentioned
that the land sold was about 6 feet below
the
plane
surface.
The
above
land
transaction took place about three years
prior to the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act,
as such, it cannot be ignored because it was
pertaining to a land which was situated near
the acquired land of Roop Narain.

34. It is apparent that PW-1's land
which was sold on 20.04.1988, was lying 6
feet below the plane surface and PW-1 has
admitted in his above oral evidence that his
land was used by brick kiln and was having
pits. Roop Narain PW-2 has although
deposed that his land was not uneven, was
fertile and irrigated, soil was not extracted
from it by the brick kiln, but on the
contrary, DW-2 deposed that the acquired
land of Roop Narain was uneven, having
pits because soil was extracted from it by
the brick kiln. Even if, it is assumed that
Roop Narain's acquired land was also used
by brick kiln for extraction of soil, was
degraded, having pits, was barren and
infertile, even then, he is entitled to get
compensation on the basis of the highest
exemplar dated 20.04.1988, according to
which land transaction took place @
Rs.34,125/- per biswa, which is in
accordance with the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal
Khemji(supra) and Manohar(supra).

35. It is also true that the exemplar
dated 20.04.1988 relates to a transaction of
small piece of land measuring four biswa,
whereas the area of acquired land of Roop
Narain was 6-2-0 bigha.

36. The Apex Court in the case of
Horrmal(Deceased) through his Lrs.&
Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2990, while analysing the
deductions
to
be
made
from
the
compensation payable to land owner, has
held as under:-

"30. Thus, having established the
sale exemplar being relied upon and
consequentially the base price to be Rupees
1,81,33,867 per acre, we now proceed to
the aspect of deductions to be applied to
the amount so determined. In this regard,
there is no hard and fast rule on the
amount of deduction to be applied towards
development
charges.
Instead,
such
deductions may, for the purpose of making
a small area of land comparable to larger
tracts, range from a minimum of 20% to a
maximum of 75%.

31.
Since
the
degree
of
application of cuts is essentially a question
of
fact
dependent
on
the
unique
circumstances of each case, the particulars
to be reckoned with in determining the
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
extent of such deduction often include a
myriad of factors, such as the relative
difference in the size of the land in the sale
exemplar vis a vis the acquired land,
proximity to a road, nearness to developed
areas, etc. Additionally, several decisions
have also taken into account the nature of
the lands because of the stark difference
that may exist between the valuation of an
agricultural or undeveloped land and the
sale price of a small developed plot in a
private layout.

32. Circling back to the facts of
the present case, it is evident that the land
in Ex. P5 is similar in nature to the
acquired land, both being agricultural
land. Its proximity to the acquired land and
the fact that it is situated in the same
village of Tauru, are relevant when
determining the extent of deductions to be
applied in calculating the compensation to
be granted to the Appellants. Additionally,
what is also of utmost importance is that
the value of the land is corroborated by
surrounding circumstances, which point
towards its potentiality. Although Ex. P76
cannot be relied upon since it was executed
after
the
Section
4
notification,
it
nonetheless reflects the land's potential for
being used other than for agricultural
purposes. Moreover, the acquired land's
strategic location near the Bus Stand,
Grain Market and Main Bazaar, besides
being located near Palwal-Sohna-Rewari
State Highway, as well as its proximity to
the Industrial Township at Bhiwadi, and
nearby schools and colleges, further
supports the assertion that the land
possesses immense potentiality.

33.
On
the
face
of
these
distinctive factors lies the challenge of
ascertaining the appropriate extent of
deduction
to
be
made.
As
already
established, judicial precedents dictate that
the amount of deduction to be applied
towards developmental charges can range
from anywhere between 20% to 75%. On
the one hand, we must acknowledge and
recognise the stark disparity between the
size of the land covered by the sale
exemplar and the acquired land. On the
other hand, it is incumbent that we take
note of the various advantageous factors
associated with the acquired land at the
time of issuance of the Section 4
notification. A balanced approach in
adjudicating
this
particular
issue
is
therefore necessary. Considering these
militating aspects, we cannot justify
applying deduction at either extreme end
of the spectrum. A prudent course of
action might be to steer a middle path,
aiming for a range approximately between
46% to 50%.

34. Having said that, even if we
were to apply the higher end of deductions
from this middle course, at 50%, the
compensation to be granted to the
Appellants would still surpass the amount
initially determined by the LAC and would
in fact, be closer in range to the rate
granted by the Reference Court."

(emphasis supplied)

37. From the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Horrmal(supra),
it is evident that where the land transaction
is of a small area, then for determining the
compensation for large area of acquired
land and after considering the expenses
incurred towards it's development, a
maximum deduction of 50% can be made
from the market value denoted in the
exemplar,
on
the
basis
of
which
compensation is to be determined.

38. In the instant case, as analysed
herein before, the highest exemplar dated
20.04.1988 pertains to land transaction of
10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Ishani & Anr.
1157
small area of four biswa whereas the
acquired land of Roop Narain was 6 bigha
2 biswa, which was large in comparison,
and assuming that it was degraded, barren,
infertile and having pits from which soil
was extracted by the brick kiln, as such, for
developing it and making suitable for the
purposes of acquisition, a maximum
deduction of 50% can be made from the
value reflected in the exemplar dated
20.04.1988. After making the above
deduction of 50%, the true market value of
the acquired land comes to Rs.17,062.50
per biswa, which the appellants are entitled
to get, besides other statutory benefits
admissible under the Land Acquisition
Act,1894.

39.
Insofar
as
the
amount
of
compensation awarded for well, house and
four fruit bearing trees situated on the
acquired land of the land owner is
concerned, since no contrary evidence was
adduced by the land owner before the
Reference Court, as such, the amount of
compensation awarded by the Collector
under above heads require no interference
from this Court in exercise of it's appellate
jurisdiction.

40. In view of this, the Reference
Court has certainly erred in not enhancing
the compensation for the acquired land,
upholding the Collector's award and
dismissing the reference by impugned
award and decree dated 08.08.2007.
Consequently, this appeal has got merits
and is liable to be allowed.

41. Accordingly, this appeal is
hereby allowed. The impugned award and
decree dated 08.08.2007 is set aside.

42. The appellants are entitled to get
enhanced compensation @ Rs.17,062.50
per biswa for their acquired land. They are
also
entitled
to
get
30%
solatium,
additional compensation @ 12% per annum
and enhanced interest u/s 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894.

43. The instant appeal was filed on
12.11.2007 which was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 13.07.2009, which was
restored on 11.02.2011. Again the appeal
was dismissed for deficiency of court fees
and non-prosecution on 06.04.2011. The
deficiency of court fees was made good on
04.05.2016 and the appeal was restored on
27.07.2016, as such, the appellants are not
entitled to get interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation awarded by this
Court for the period 12.11.2007 till
27.07.2016.

44. Costs easy. Office is directed to
prepare the decree accordingly.

45. Office is directed to send back the
original trial court record, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1157
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2342 of 2025

United India Insurance Com. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Ishani & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arun Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION