# Sri Kishan & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 1134
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 681 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-kishan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54283
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
49. In the opinion of this court, the trial court has erred in determining the compensation on
the basis that the deceased was a labourer who was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, as such, the
compensation awarded to the plaintiffs cannot be reduced in any manner.

50. It is further apparent that the trial court has not awarded any compensation to the
plaintiffs towards future prospects of the deceased, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses of the deceased, which was payable to them in the light of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680.

51. In totality, the trial court has awarded less compensation to the plaintiffs, which cannot
be reduced any further in this appeal.

52. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant UP State Power
Corporation.

53. In view of the above analysis, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

54. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated
20.10.2012 of the trial court is affirmed.

55. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The trial court is directed to pay the compensation
to the surviving plaintiffs expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date,
a certified copy of this order is filed before it.

56. Learned counsel for the respondents no.5 and 6 submitted that the respondents, who
were parents of the deceased, have died during the pendency of this appeal. If that is so, the
compensation be released to the surviving plaintiffs.

----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1134
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 681 of 2002

Sri Kishan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issues for Consideration
3 All. Sri Kishan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1135
(i) Whether the appellants-landowners, whose land situated in village Morna was acquired pursuant to
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 01.06.1976, were entitled to
enhancement of compensation at the rate awarded by the Supreme Court in respect of acquisition of land of
the same village and the same notification?
(ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% and enhanced interest
under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 where both the Collector's award and the Reference
Court's award had been made prior to 30.04.1982?
(iii) Whether interest on the enhanced compensation was liable to be denied for the period during which the
appeal remained defective owing to deficiency in court-fee?

Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 4, 6, 18 and 54 - Acquisition of land for NOIDA - Village
Morna, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now Gautam Buddh Nagar) - Notification
under Section 4 dated 01.06.1976 - Compensation determined by Supreme Court in respect of
acquisition under same notification - Parity in compensation.

HELD: The acquisition in question pertained to land situated in village Morna acquired pursuant to notification
under Section 4 dated 01.06.1976 and declaration under Section 6 dated 16.09.1976. The Supreme Court in
Ajai Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh determined the market value of land acquired under the same
acquisition proceedings at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard. Since the controversy regarding valuation of
land covered by the same notification had attained finality before the Supreme Court, the appellants were
entitled to compensation at the same rate. The award of the Reference Court granting compensation at Rs.6
per square yard was liable to be enhanced accordingly. [Paras 5 to 8]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 23(2), 28 and 30(2) of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984 - Enhanced solatium and enhanced interest - Applicability of Amendment Act, 1984 -
Award of Collector and Reference Court passed prior to 30.04.1982.

HELD: Where both the award of the Collector and the award of the Reference Court were made prior to
30.04.1982, the benefits introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 are not available. The
claimants are not entitled to enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% under amended Section 23(2), nor to
enhanced rates of interest under the amended provisions. In such cases, only solatium at the rate of 15% and
interest at the rate of 6% per annum are admissible under the unamended Act. [Paras 9 to 13]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 28 - Interest on enhanced compensation - Appeal remaining
defective due to deficiency in court-fee - Entitlement to interest for such period.

HELD: The appeal was instituted on 02.12.1982 but the deficiency in court-fee was removed only on
11.01.1985. The appellants were therefore not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation
for the period during which the appeal remained defective. Interest on the enhanced compensation was liable
to be excluded for the period from 02.12.1982 to 11.01.1985. [Para 14]

Land Acquisition - Reference Court award - Enhancement of compensation in appeal -
Statutory benefits.

HELD: The appellants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.28.12 per square yard for the acquired
land together with solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum in accordance with
the unamended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [Paras 8 and 13]

Appeal allowed in part. Compensation enhanced to Rs.28.12 per square yard. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ajai Pal Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2022) 15 SCC 442 - relied on;
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 756 - relied on;
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and Another, (2003) 2 SCC 484 - relied on;
Sarup Singh and Another v. Union of India and Another, (2011) 11 SCC 198 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984).

List of Keywords
Land acquisition; Village Morna acquisition; NOIDA acquisition; Market value; Enhancement of compensation;
Comparable acquisition; Solatium; Interest on compensation; Deficient court-fee; Defective appeal; Statutory
benefits.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 04.02.1982 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in L.A.R. No. 298 of 1979,
Shri Kishan and Others v. State of U.P.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Hemant Kumar and Sri Shiv Shankar Singh.
For the Respondents: Sri A.K. Roy.

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

InRe: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.311333 of 2015 & Civil Misc.
Substitution Application No.311335 of 2015

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent.
'
2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the
substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant no.1 Sri Kishan,
appellant no.2 Likhiram, appellant no.3 Mam Chand, appellant no.4 Smt. Shanti and appellant no.5
Rama Nand.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above appellants died during the
pendency of the appeal and since the original advocate, who was engaged for filing the appeal has
also died, as such, the substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the above
appellants could not be filed within time.

4. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application and
substitution application, which is uncontroverted.

5. The cause shown for filing the substitution application with delay is sufficient.

6. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

7. Accordingly, the delay condonation and substitution applications are allowed.
3 All. Sri Kishan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1137
8. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to amend the memo of appeal,
accordingly.

InRe: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.39478 of 2017 & Civil Misc.
Substitution Application No.39481 of 2017

1.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This delay condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in moving the
substitution application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant no.1/4 Khem
Chand, who has died on 07.09.2016 leaving behind his wife Smt. Bhagwati and sons Pramod
Sharma, Harish Sharma, Gopal Sharma and Manoj Sharma, as legal heirs.

3. An affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application and
substitution application, which is uncontroverted.

4. The cause shown for filing the substitution application with delay is sufficient.

5. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

6. Accordingly, the delay condonation and substitution applications are allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to amend the memo of appeal,
accordingly.

Order on Appeal

1. The instant first appeal has been filed by the appellants for enhancement of
compensation, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the impugned judgment
and award dated 04.02.1982 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in LAR No.298 of 1979 (Shri
Kishan and others Vs. State of U.P.) whereby compensation @ Rs.6 per square yard besides other
statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894 has been awarded to the land
owners for their acquired land situated in village Morna, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District
Ghaziabad (now District Gautam Buddh Nagar).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant land owners submitted that matter relating to the
acquisition of land situated in village Morna, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now
District Gautam Buddh Nagar), which was acquired through notification under Section 4 of the Act
dated 01.06.1976 has attained finality since, compensation @ Rs.28.12 paise per square yard has
been awarded by the Apex Court in the case of Ajai Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. (2022) 15 SCC 442. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appellants be also
awarded the same amount of compensation that has been awarded by the Apex Court in the above
case.
1138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Per contra, Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent - NOIDA very fairly
accepted that the Apex Court in the case of Ajai Pal Singh (supra) decided on 23.09.2021 has
awarded compensation @ Rs.28.12 paise per square yard regarding the acquisition of land by
NOIDA pertaining to the year 1976-1977. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants may not
be awarded interest on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the period
during which the appeal remained defective.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and
documents submitted with the appeal.

5. It is apparent that in the instant case the matter relates to the acquisition of land of
village Morna, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now District Gautam Buddh Nagar)
by the NOIDA, which was acquired through notification under Section 4 of the Act dated
01.06.1976, the declaration under Section 6 was published on 16.09.1976 and the award of the
Collector was made on 02.05.1977, whereby compensation @ Rs.10,225/- per bigha for Chai land
and Rs.7,570/- per bigha for Khaki land was awarded to the landowners, which has been enhanced
by the Reference Court to Rs.6/- per square yard. The Reference Court has also awarded
solatium@ 15% and interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation.

6. It is apparent that the Apex Court in the case of Ajai Pal Singh (supra) has awarded
compensation @ Rs.28.12 paise per square yard regarding the acquisition of land by NOIDA
pertaining to the year 1976-1977.

7. In view of this, the appellants are also entitled to get compensation at the same rate at
which it has been awarded by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case.

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled to get
compensation @ Rs.28.12 paise per square yard for the acquired land situated in village Morna,
Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now District Gautam Buddh Nagar).

9. The question arises whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced solatium @30% and
enhanced interest @15% per annum under Amending Act of 1984, as awarded in Section 28 of the
Act of 1894?

10. The Apex Court in similar facts and circumstances, where the award of the Collector
and Reference Court was passed before 30.04.1982, in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
vs. Kanhaiya Lal and others (2000) 7 SCC 756, held as under:-

 "14. ....Section 25 deals with the amount of compensation to be awarded by the court. It
mandates the court that such compensation shall not be less than the amount awarded by the
Collector under Section 11. Awarding of compensation, curtailing, restricting or adding right to
the compensation can never be said to be procedural. The language of this section clearly reveals,
it is substantive in nature, hence it cannot be held to be retrospective as to make the amending Act
applicable. In fact, this second question, regarding granting of interest, with reference to the
applicability of the amending Act, this Court has considered it in Mir Fazeelath Hussain v. Special
3 All. Sri Kishan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1139
Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition [(1995) 3 SCC 208] . This Court held, in case of awards made by
Collector and Reference Court prior to 30-4-1982 but amount of compensation enhanced by the
Supreme Court in appeal long after the period of 30-4-1982 to 24-9-1984, the claimant is entitled
to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the old rate of 6 per cent only. It further
held, interest under Section 28 and solatium under Section 23(2) are not parts of the award hence
what was stated in Raghubir Singh case [(1989) 2 SCC 754] solatium would equally apply to the
interest also.

 15. Accordingly, we hold on the facts of the present case that interest admissible to the
respondent claimant would only be 6% as per unamended provision. Thus the High Court granting
interest @ 9% and 15% under the proviso of the amended section cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, we set aside that part of the High Court order which enhanced the compensation to
the respondent claimant over and above what was claimed and also set aside award of
compensation with reference to the interest at 9% and 15% respectively. Interest admissible to the
claimant would be 6%..."

11. Again, the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Anoop
Singh and Another (2003) 2 SCC 484, held as under:-

 "10. ...Though, in Raghubir Singh case [(1989) 2 SCC 754] this Court was concerned
with the percentage of the solatium payable under Section 23, the same principle would equally
apply to the rate of interest payable under Section 28. Both Section 23(2) as well as Section 28 are
referred to in the same sub-section which was construed in Raghubir Singh case [(1989) 2 SCC
754] . What applies to solatium is equally applicable to interest. This position has not been
disputed before us and cannot be disputed in view of the legal position declared by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan (II) v. State of Kerala [(1995) 1 SCC 367] ."

12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sarup Singh and Another vs. Union of India
and Another (2011) 11 SCC 198, held as under:-

 "19. The applicability of the Amendment Act to a proceeding of the aforesaid nature was
made clear by Act 68 of 1984 by enacting the provision of Section 30(2). In all the appeals before
us, the award of the Collector and that of the Reference Court in the appellants' case was passed
prior to 30-4-1982. Therefore, the said amendment brought in by Act 68 of 1984 to the provisions
concerned could not have been made applicable to the proceedings of the present cases. Hence, the
judgment and order passed by the High Court giving the benefit provided under Amendment Act 68
of 1984 viz. Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) and the amended provision of Section 34 of the Act, cannot
be made applicable in the cases of the appellants herein."

13. It is apparent that in this case the award of the Collector and the Reference Court has
been made prior to 30.04.1982, as such, in view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, the
appellants are not entitled to get enhanced solatium @ 30% in accordance with the Amending Act
68 of 1984. The appellants are only entitled to get solatium @ 15% for their acquired land.
Similarly, the appellants will only be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced
amount of compensation awarded to them, by this Court.
1140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. The instant appeal was filed on 02.12.1982 but the deficiency of the court fees was
made good on 11.01.1985, as such, the appellants are not entitled to get interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the above mentioned period between
02.12.1982 to 11.01.1985.

15. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1140
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7721 of 2023

Smt. Hasina Khatoon ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the recovery of arrears of interim maintenance on the ground
of prior civil imprisonment under Section 300 Cr.P.C.?

Whether execution under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act was maintainable?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125, 300, 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 504 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -
Sections 12, 20, 23, 31 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 40: - Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the impugned order - by which the court below
partly rejected the execution of application for recovery of amount Rs. 2,64,000/- from the dues amount of
the maintenance awarded as an interim maintenance under section 31 of Domestic Violence Act - marriage in
1990 - matrimonial disputes - FIR u/s 498-A IPC - later compromise in 2017 - Domestic Violence - complaint
u/s 12 D.V. Act - interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month granted - appeal - dismissed - challenged in
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - dismissed - execution allowed - recovery warrant proceeding initiated - opposite
party no. 2 arrested and sent to civil prison - subsequent application for recovery - partly rejected - opposite
party no. 2 taken plea of Section 300 Cr.P.C. - he further pleaded that civil imprisonment does not extinguish
liability - Court finds that, section 300 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to maintenance proceedings - civil detention is
coercive not punitive - arrears remain enforceable - held - impugned order quashed - recovery certificate
directed for Rs. 2,64,000/- with 6% interest - property attachment if default continues - consequently, present
application is allowed with directions for complete the recovery within 60 days.
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
V.D. Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183