# State Of U.P v. Smt. Vidayawati & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 198
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-02
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-smt-vidayawati-ors-43900
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. For the reasons aforesaid, it is obvious that the prosecution has been able to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the trial court has taken holistic view of the case
and has recorded conviction based on record and accordingly imposed just sentence (on the
appellant).

31. The judgment and order of conviction dated 11.12.2013 passed in S.T. No.457 of 2011
arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2011, Police Station Manikpur, district Pratapgarh, is hereby
affirmed.

32. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

33. Appellant is in jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence as ordered by the
learned trial court.

34. Let a copy of this order be certified to the learned trial court for its intimation and
necessary follow-up action.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

First Appeal No.- 758 Of 1994

State Of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Vidayawati & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellant:
S.C., B.D. Mandhyan, S.C. Mandhyan, Satish Mandhyan

Counsel for Respondents:
D.K. Singh, Ajay Kumar Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Ranjeet Saxena

In the present case a notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 6.8.1976 was
published on 9.8.1976 for acquisition of an area 54 bighas 13 biswas and 5 dhurs, land of village Gangoh
Mazabta, Distt. Saharanpur for construction of Navin Mandi Samiti in Qasba Gangoh, Distt. Saharanpur.
Possession was taken on 24.9.1976. The award was made on 5.3.1983, determining compensation of two
categories of land @ of Rs.6,457.83 per bigha of "Aval Aabi" quality land and Rs.3524.96 for land quality "1
Khakhi".

The only point of dispute being raised by the appellant is that on account of largeness of the area of the
acquired land in question, higher deduction of 60% should have been allowed in determining the market
value on the basis of the exemplars sale deed relied by the claimants.
5 All. State Of U.P. Vs Smt. Vidayawati & Ors.

199
Court after considering the present fact and circumstances as well as Division Bench judgement in the case of
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Etawah Vs. Bishan Dass and others 2005(Suppl.) RD 336. Court held
that the impugned judgment dated 24.2.1989 and the decree passed by the court of 5th Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.137 of 1988 is modified determining the market value of the
acquired land at Rs.28,800/- per bigha. This determination is being done by the Court on a statement made
by learned counsel for the appellant that no other Land Acquisition Reference arising from the same
acquisition was made and no judgment and decree was passed except the judgment and decree impugned in
the present appeal.

The appeal is partly allowed

List of Cases Cited

1. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Etawah Vs. Bishan Dass and others 2005(Suppl.) RD 336.
2. Special Deputy Collector and another Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others: AIR 1997 SC 2625
3. Special Tehsildar,Land Acquisition Vishakpatnam Vs. A. Mangala Gowri : AIR 1992 SC 666

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.M. Tripathi, holding brief of Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below has committed a manifest
error of law and fact to apply exemplar of very small area of land after giving merely 25%
deduction on account of largeness of the area. He submits that the deduction should have been
allowed at least to the tune of Rs.60%. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded is
wholly erroneous and without consideration to the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court with
regard to deduction on account of largeness of the area.

3. Sri Rai, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree
and rely upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Etawah Vs. Bishan Dass and others 2005(Suppl.) RD 336.

4. I have carefully considered the statement of learned counsel for the parties.

5. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that a notification, under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 6.8.1976 was published on 9.8.1976 for acquisition of an
area 54 bighas 13 biswas and 5 dhurs, land of village Gangoh Mazabta, Distt. Saharanpur for
construction of Navin Mandi Samiti in Qasba Gangoh, Distt. Saharanpur. Possession was taken on
24.9.1976. The award was made on 5.3.1983, determining compensation of two categories of land
@ of Rs.6,457.83 per bigha of "Aval Aabi" quality land and Rs.3524.96 for land quality "1
Khakhi".

6. Khasra plot No.1872 measuring 12 bighas 9 biswas and 2 dhurs, land of Qasba Gangoh,
Distt. Saharanpur belonging to the claimants-respondents was acquired. An inspection report being
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paper no.27-C 2 was obtained by the L.A.O. before passing the award in which it was mentioned
the acquired land to be within the limits of Nagar Palika and on the main road and of very high
value. The claimants-respondents have led various documentary and oral evidences before the
Court below while the appellant has filed merely copy of a sale deed dated 29.12.1973 executed by
one Smt. Shanti in favour of one Sri Raj Kumar. No oral evidence was led by the appellant.

7. The P.W.1 in his uncontroverted statement stated that the acquired land is situated in
town Gangoh and is well connected with the road. Chungi no.4 of Municipal Board and Rice Mill
are situated near the disputed land. He also stated that there is dense population, shops and a Bus
Stand.

8. From the evidence considered by the court below, it is evident that acquired land in
question was of high quality irrigated land. The location of land being on road and situated near
Chungi, Rice Mill, dense population and shops etc. as well as the Titron Bus stand have not been
disputed.

9. On these facts, the court below came to the conclusion that paper no.25-C, being sale
deed dated 29.12.1975, executed by one Smt. Shanti in favour of one Sri Ram Kumar can not be
accepted as an exemplar for reasons that the said sale deed was of unirrigated land.

10. The court below rightly rejected the stand taken by appellant for determination of
compensation on the basis of prevalent circle rate. In ground no.3 of the memorandum of appeal
filed before this court the appellant has contended that 25% deduction for determination of
compensation has been wrongly allowed by the court below and instead of deduction should have
been 60% to 70%. Thus the appellant is not disputing the reliance placed by the court below on sale
deed exemplar dated 17.4.1975 and 3.9.1975 as per which market value comes to Rs.48,000/- per
bigha. The appellant disputes the deduction on account of largeness of the area. According to the
appellant, 60% deduction should have been allowed on account of largeness of the area as against
25% deduction as applied by the court below for determination of market value of the acquired
land in question. The court below has applied Rs.36,000/- per bigha for determination of market
value of the acquired land in question while according to the appellant, as contended before this
court; market value comes to Rs.19,200/- per bigha after applying deduction of 60%. Thus, it is not
in dispute that the award, made by the Land Acquisition Officer, determining the market value as
aforementioned was wholly erroneous.

11. The sale deed exemplars relied by the court below are of land close to the acquired land
in question. The location of the acquired land in question has not been disputed or denied by the
appellant. In the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), the Division Bench reiterated the
settled principles of law that fair, reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact
which depends on the evidences adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each
case. The guiding test or the acid test could be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer
the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent
man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired
5 All. State Of U.P. Vs Smt. Vidayawati & Ors.

201
lands are situated as on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act; but not an
anxious buyer dealing at arm's length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or
fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value.
The answer to the question has to be found out by the Court whether in the given set of
circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court
proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions.

12. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of
the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property
comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the
manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. In the absence of such a sale deed,
the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land
as well as the features of the area becomes relevant provided that the transaction
represented by such a sale deed was a bona fide transaction; and the land similar to the
land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar
advantageous features.

13. The facts of the present case and the findings as recorded in the impugned
judgment and decree clearly indicates that the sale deed exemplars relied by the court
below for determination of compensation has similar in features and location. The only
point of dispute being raised by the appellant is that on account of largeness of the area of
the acquired land in question, higher deduction of 60% should have been allowed in
determining the market value on the basis of the exemplars sale deed relied by the
claimants.

14. In my view, considering the facts and circumstances as well as the Division
Bench judgement in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra) and the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector and another Vs.
Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others: AIR 1997 SC 2625 and Special Tehsildar , Land
Acquisition Vishakpatnam Vs. A. Mangala Gowri : AIR 1992 SC 666 a deduction of
40% deduction of transaction of the area should have been made and consequently rate of
Rs.28,800/- per bigha appears to be representing market value of the acquired land.

15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated 24.2.1989 and
the decree passed by the court of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in
L.A. Case No.137 of 1988 is modified determining the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.28,800/- per bigha. This determination is being done by the Court on a statement made
by learned counsel for the appellant that no other Land Acquisition Reference arising from
the same acquisition was made and no judgment and decree was passed except the
judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal. The claimants shall be entitled all the
statutory benefits as granted by the court below.

16. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD KUMAR MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax)/ Writ Tax No.- 809 Of 2012

M/s Mohan Meakin Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel For Petitioner:
Syed Faheem, Ahmad, Anurag Khanna, Dhruv Agarwal and Ms. Himadari Batra

Councel For Respondents:
C.S.C. and Avinash Chandra Tripathi

HELD:

• Penal interest is payable only when excise revenue becomes legally recoverable.

• Once demand is quashed, it is wiped out and does not revive automatically.

• Fresh demand after Supreme Court judgment is mandatory.

• Payment made within stipulated period-no interest payable.

Case Law Cited:-

NONE

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st June, 2012
issued by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ghaziabad demanding a sum of Rs.5,92,20,339.94
paise towards penal interest for late deposit of excise duty for the period September, 1963 to
March, 1973.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is a Company
engaged in the manufacture and sale of Beer and Indian made foreign liquor. The Excise
Commissioner issued 10 orders between the period 28th June, 1963 to 24th November, 1973
levying an amount of Rs.81,94,310/- as excise duty and fine on wastage of Beer in excess of 10%