# Singh v. Collector, Varanasi)

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 648
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-10-11
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 207 of 1990
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singh-v-collector-varanasi-41041
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act 1894- Section-54Enhancement of compensation-reference
Court while enhancing the amount-duty
bound to show the reason for taking
different view-than the view taken by
S.L.O.-even no error in the view taken by
S.L.O.
Noticed
in
the
order-heldreference Court's order cannot sustain.

Held: Para 11

Thus,
in
the
totality
of
the
circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the reference court has
erred
in
law
in
enhancing
the
compensation awarded by the SLAO to
the claimant-respondent.
Case law discussed:
2005(6) SCC 454
JT 1992(5) SC 414
JT 1997(4)SC 112
JT 1992(5) SC 402
3 All] Collector, Varanasi V. Dariyao Singh
649

## Text

648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the welfare of the family that they have
been designated as "GRIH LAXMI". It is
uncontroversial fact that the deceased was
rearing cattle, taking care of five minor
children, managing the family, as her
husband was in employment and her
contribution in augmenting the income of
the family ought not to have been ignored.
The learned Tribunal ignored the fact that
the husband of the deceased Prabhakar
Pandey was employed in railway and it
was but natural for the deceased to look
after the agricultural and other affairs of
the family also.

10. In view of the above the finding
that the deceased was a housewife and her
contribution in the augmentation of the
family income was negligible appears to
be erroneous. Deceased could have earned
Rs.1500/- per month by selling milk and
its by-products. It appears that the finding
is based on conjectures and surmises.

11. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case I am of the view
that the compensation of Rs.60.000/- is
too meager. Once the same Court had
come to the conclusion that Rs.2 lacs
should have been adequate compensation
for the loss of human life, then how
subsequently the same court has reduced
the compensation to Rs.60,000/- is
ridiculous. No such conclusion could be
drawn on the same material, which
existed on the date of earlier judgment
and on the date of subsequent order
passed by the Court. The findings are
wholly erroneous, unjust and improper.

12. Keeping a mid way, this Court is
of the view that Rs.1,50,000/- should be
adequate compensation in this case.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the
judgment and award of the court below is
modified to the extent that the Claimants
shall be entitled to Rs1,50,000/- as
compensation along with Interest at the
rate of 10 per cent per annum. All the
necessary consequences shall follow.
Appeal Allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.10.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

First Appeal No. 207 of 1990

Collector, Varanasi

 ...Defendant/Appellant
Versus.
Dariyao Singh ...Claimant/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shrish Chandra (SC)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.C. Sinha

Land Acquisition Act 1894- Section-54Enhancement of compensation-reference
Court while enhancing the amount-duty
bound to show the reason for taking
different view-than the view taken by
S.L.O.-even no error in the view taken by
S.L.O.
Noticed
in
the
order-heldreference Court's order cannot sustain.

Held: Para 11

Thus,
in
the
totality
of
the
circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the reference court has
erred
in
law
in
enhancing
the
compensation awarded by the SLAO to
the claimant-respondent.
Case law discussed:
2005(6) SCC 454
JT 1992(5) SC 414
JT 1997(4)SC 112
JT 1992(5) SC 402
3 All] Collector, Varanasi V. Dariyao Singh
649
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. This appeal under Section 54 of
the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) is
directed against the judgment, order and
award
dated
3.11.1989
and
the
consequential decree of the reference
court passed in LAR No. 77 of 1988
(Dariyao Singh Vs. Collector, Varanasi)
by
which
the
reference
court
has
enhanced
the
compensation
of
the
acquired land awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).

2. At the behest of the Executive
Engineer,
Chandraprabha
Khand,
Varanasi the State of U.P. notified to
acquire 10.42 acres of land of various
villages for increasing the capacity of
Narainpur Pump Canal having a length of
about 20 Kms. The notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
was issued on 31.5.1986 and was
followed by a declaration under Section 6
of the Act dated 19.7.1986. By the
aforesaid notifications agriculture land
having an area of 0.28 acres of the
claimant-respondent situate in Village
Dhurikot,
Pargana
Majhwar,
Tehsil
Chandauli, District Varanasi was also
acquired. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer vide award No. 80 of 143 dated
30.7.1987
offered
market
value
of
Rs.2,16,875.34 paise per acre along with
statutory
benefits.
The
claimantrespondent was awarded a sum of
Rs.8,384.81 paise as compensation. He
was not satisfied by the compensation so
offered.
Therefore,
he
preferred
a
reference under Section 18 of the Act
claiming market value @ Rs.1,60,000/-
per acre. The reference court on the basis
of
the
judgment
and
order
dated
18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988
(Kailash
Bhushan
Vs.
Collector,
Varanasi) determined the market value @
Rs.67,200/- per acre of the acquired land.

Aggrieved
by
the
aforesaid
enhancement the Collector, Varanasi has
preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Sri Shrish Chandra, learned
Standing counsel for the appellant and Sri
R.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant/respondent.

4. It is settled legal position that the
amount awarded by the SLAO is like an
offer and the reference is equivalent to a
plaint of a suit. It is upon the claimantrespondent to show or establish that the
compensation offered by the SLAO is inadequate and at the same time to prove
the appropriate market value by adducing
cogent evidence. In this regard the
exemplar sale deeds of the same village
relating to genuine and bona fide sale
transactions are considered to be the best
exemplars. Admittedly, in the present
case the claimant-respondent has not filed
any exemplar sale deed to prove the
market value of the acquired land
prevailing at the time of the acquisition.
The claimant-respondent though claimed
market value @ of Rs.1,60,000/- as per
acre but no documentary evidence in
support was adduced except for the copy
of
the
judgment
and
order
dated
18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988
wherein compensation @ 67,200/- per
acre was awarded in respect of the land of
village Katshila, Pargana Majhwar.

5. I have perused the original record
of the reference Court. The award of the
SLAO indicates that he had considered 5
sale deeds which were executed within 3
years preceding the acquisition in the
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
village as per the office of the subregistrar
registration.
The
SLAO
discarded the two sale deeds as one of
them was regarding the Abadi Land and
the other was in respect of a grove. Thus
he placed reliance upon the remaining 3
sale deeds which involved the land
similarly and identically located as the
acquired land in making the award. In
ONGC Ltd. Vs. Sendhabhai Vastram
Patel and others (2005) 6 SCC 454, the
Apex court ruled that where the reference
court intends to take a different view from
the one taken by the SLAO, it is duty
bound to record reasons. In reference the
claimant-respondent has not adduced any
evidence to show that the reasoning
adopted by the SLAO in making the
award is in any way wrong and is not
tenable. The reference court has also not
recorded any finding that the SLAO had
committed an error in choosing the
exemplar sale deed or that he has
otherwise ignored material evidence or a
better exemplar while determining the
market value. Therefore, in nut shell no
fault was found with the award of the
SLAO and no reasons for deferring with
the view expressed by the SLAO were
assigned. Thus, when no fault appeared in
the award of the SLAO, the reference
court was not justified in enhancing the
compensation awarded.

6. Now it has to examined whether
there was sufficient material/evidence
before the reference court to increase the
compensation. It is admitted on record
that no exemplar sale deed was brought
on record to prove the market value. The
only documentary evidence thus is the
judgment and order passed in the LAR
No. 352 of 1988 (Kailash Bhushan Vs.
Collector, Varanasi).

7. A perusal of the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 18.9.1989
passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 indicates
that it is in respect of land of village
Katshila which is a different village.
There is no evidence of any kind to
indicate the location of village Katshila
vis. a vis. village Dhurikot in which the
land of the claimant-respondent is situate.
There is neither any pleading or evidence
oral or documentary to prove the
similarity in the lands of both the villages.
In Ranjit Singh and others Vs. Union
Territory of Chandigarh JT 1992 (5)
SC 414 the Apex Court observed where
the claimants have not adduced evidence
to show that the acquired land was similar
to the land for which higher market value
was awarded, the prayer for demand of
higher compensation is liable to be
dismissed. Moreover, the land of village
Katshila involved in LAR No. 352 of
1988 was acquired by a notification dated
26.4.1984 issued under Section 4 of the
Act dated i.e. two years prior to the
acquisition of the land of the claimantrespondent. The award in respect of the
said acquisition was also made by the
SLAO on 14.8.1986. Therefore, the
aforesaid judgment and order dated
18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988
was passed in a totally different situation
and in the absence of any evidence
establishing the similarly or comparably
of the two lands the said judgment and
order could not have been applied and
made the basis for determining the market
value of the land involved in the present
reference/appeal. Thus, the reference
court fell in patent error in enhancing the
compensation on its basis.

8. Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the
claimant-respondent then placed reliance
upon a judgment and order of this Court
3 All] Collector, Varanasi V. Dariyao Singh
651
dated 25.11.2003 passed in First Appeal
No. 307 of 1990 (State of U.P. Vs. Jai
Govind Singh) and submitted that in the
said appeal the award of Rs.67,200/- per
acre as market value has been upheld by
the High Court . Therefore, on parity
alone this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned Standing counsel on the
other hand submitted that the above
judgment and order of the High Court
cannot be applied as it has only upheld the
decision of the reference court which has
been passed on the basis of the judgment
and order impugned in the present appeal.

10. From the perusal of the
judgment and order dated 25.11.2003
passed in above First Appeal No. 307 of
1990, it transpires that the said appeal had
arisen from the LAR No. 78 of 1980. In
the said reference also the dispute was
about the determination of compensation
of the land situate in village Dhurikot
which
was
acquired
by
the
same
notifications. The High Court upheld the
judgment and order of the reference court
treating the judgment and order in the
case of Dariyao singh i.e. the present
reference to be final and conclusive. It
appears that the fact of pendency of this
appeal was not brought to the notice of
the Court. The Dariyao Singh's case was
decided on the basis of judgment and
order dated 18.9.1989 passed in LAR No.
352 of 1988 and @ Rs. 67,200/- per acre
was awarded. It has already been held by
me above that the judgment and order
passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 had no
application for awarding compensation
for the land situate in village Dhurikot for
the simple reason that the land involved in
the said reference was of a different
village and was acquired two years prior
to the acquisition of the land involved
herein coupled with the fact that there was
no evidence to establish the comparability
of the lands of the two villages. In ONGC
(Supra) the Supreme court has also laid
down that the judgments and awards in
respect of neighbouring lands would be of
no value of the comparability of the lands
are not established by evidence and
particularly when they have not attained
finality. Similarly, in Jai Prakash and
others Vs. Union of India JT 1997 (4)
SC 112 the Apex Court had ruled that
merely because higher compensation was
given for lands in neighbouring villages
does not entitle the claimants the same
compensation. Thus, to conclude the
judgment and order passed by the
reference Court in LAR No. 352 of 1988
was wrongly made the basis of awarding
compensation
in
the
present
case.
Moreover, the High Court had decided the
First Appeal No. 307 of 1990 in view of
the judgment and order of the reference
court passed in the present reference
which had not become final. Therefore,
even though the First Appeal No. 307 of
1990 has been dismissed and the award of
compensation @ Rs.67,200/- per acre has
been upheld in one of the references, it
would not effect the jurisdiction of the
court to decide this appeal independently
and to determine the true and fair market
value of the acquired land for the
purposes of payment of compensation. In
Bhag Singh and others Vs. Union
Territory of Chandigarh JT 1992 (5)
SC 402 the supreme Court has laid down
that the award of compensation at a
particular rate in one stray case would not
mean that the court is not competent to
determine the market value and is bound
to award the same compensation as in
other case even when there is no evidence
on record to establish the comparability of
the lands.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007

11. Thus, in the totality of the
circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the reference court has erred
in law in enhancing the compensation
awarded by the SLAO to the claimantrespondent.

12.

Accordingly,
the
appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The judgment
and order of the reference court dated
3.11.1989 passed in LAR 77 of 1988
(Dariyao Singh Vs. Collector, Varanasi)
is set aside. No orders as to costs.

 Appeal Allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.5.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J

Criminal Revision No. [210] Of 2007

Munish Chandra Srivastava ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Gopal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section397-Criminal
Revision-Maintainabilityorder
passed
by
Magistrate
under
section 156 (3)-directing the police to
register the case- an administrative
order-though passed judicially-in nature
of reminder to police to perform its
duty-held- revision not maintainable.

Held-para 7

Since I am of the view that the revision
by the accused persons against whom
the FIR has not yet been registered was
not maintainable at all therefore, the
impugned order passed by the Sessions
Judge, Basti is de hors the law. Sessions
Judge, Basti wrongly usurped the power
of the revisional court and entertained
the
revision
before
the
FIR
was
registered against the accused persons.
How an accused can install the order for
registration
of
FIR
is
not
understandable? Under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., the accused persons have got no
right to be heard. It is an administrative
power of the Magistrate, though passed
judicially, directing the police to register
the FIR and the said order is in the
nature primary reminder to the police to
perform its legal duty as has been held
by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426 and
Deverappalli Lakshaminarayana Reddy &
Others versus V. Narayana Reddy 1976
SCC (3) 252. Lower revisional court can
not set aside the primary reminder by
exercising the power under Section 397
Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
2007(1) ALJ.169.
1992 SCC(Crl.) 426
1993 SCC- (Crl.) 1171

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. The application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist
Munish Chandra Srivastava in the Court
of J.M.- I, Basti on 5.12.2006 with the
allegations that he is a practicing advocate
in District Basti and he is owner of plot
No. 378 on which he and his brother are
in opposition. The accused persons Sarjan
Lal Srivastava along with other accused
person Surendra Mohan Mishra came on
the said plot on 21.11.2006 at 4 p.m.
along with five or six unknown persons
who were armed with firearms and
forcibly put four electric pole on the said
plot. When the applicant objected to the
said installation of electric poles on his
plot he was threatened in the witnessing
of many other co-villagers. The applicant