# Tejvir Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 306
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-10-28
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tejvir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-43628
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case auto rickshaw was hired by certain unknown passengers and thereafter the dead body of the
driver of the auto rickshaw was recovered. It is in this background that the Apex Court held that the
accident has arisen out of the use of the vehicle. The facts before us are clearly distinguishable as
has been recorded by the Tribunal. The victim was sitting in a bus which was stationed at a bus
stop and then the miscreants fired upon the sitting victim.

8. In our our opinion, the facts do not disclose any use of the vehicle in the murder of the
victim and, therefore, the Tribunal appears to be more than justified in recording a finding that in
the facts of the case, the claim petition as filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was
not misconceived.

9. We may record that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act permits an applicant to
claim compensation, from the owner of the motor vehicle or the insurer only "in case of the death
or permanent disability due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Therefore, it is
necessary that the accident must arise out of the use of the motor vehicle for a claim petition under
Section 163-A to be maintained".

10. In the facts of the case, no accident because of use of the vehicle has been caused. The
deceased has been assaulted upon by fire arm by persons while she was seated in a stationary bus at
bus depot.

11. In our opinion, the facts on record do not answer the description of an accident arising
out of use of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal appears to be more than justified in
dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

12. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

13.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.10.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal No.- 660 Of 2002

Tejvir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
4 All. Tejvir Singh Vs State Of U.P.
307
Sri M.K. Gupta, Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi

Land Acquisition - Dev Saini, Aligarh - Reference Court had fixed market value at Rs. 45 per sq yd;
claimant relied on earlier awards in the same acquisition (LAR Nos. 33/1992, 1/1993, 40/1993) where Rs. 7090 per sq yd was granted - Held, those exemplar awards, arising from the same Section 4 notification and
similarly situated land, were wrongly discarded merely because they were subordinate-court awards and no
Section 28-A application was made; prior dismissal of UPSIDC's appeal upholding Rs. 45 per sq yd only
rejected the plea for a lower rate and does not bar enhancement at claimant's instance. Award dated
23.5.2002 set aside and reference remanded for fresh determination considering the exemplar awards, to be
concluded within six months. (Paras 2-8, 10-13)

Appeal Allowed

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
&
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel for appellant. None has appeared on behalf of
the respondent though the case has been called in revised. In the circumstances, we proceed to hear
and decide appeal ex parte.

2. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act, 1894") read with section 96 of C.P.C. has arisen from award/judgment dated 23.5.2002
passed by Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, XIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Land
Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as "LAR") No. 29 of 1996 . It has determined market
value of acquired land at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard. Besides, it has also awarded 12% additional
compensation under Section 23 (1-a) of Act 1894. Solarium and interest have also been awarded as
per various provisions of statute,

3. The facts in brief are that at the instance of U.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "UPSIDC"), proceedings for acquisition of land at village
Dev Saini, Tehsil Koel, District Aligarh were initiated for acquiring 174-1-4 Bigha (40.114
Hectare) of land. Notification under section 4(1) of Act 1894 was published in Gazette dated
29.3.1989 and under Section 6(1) it was published on 30.9.1989. Special Land Acquisition Officer
(hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") made award dated 13.1.1991 determining market value of
acquired land depending on nature of soil as under :-

fdLe tehu
ijrk
cUnh
{ks=Qy nj
@,dM
izekf.kr izfrdj
u0 lks;e
2-5
53&10&2
17]712-10
9]83]114-55
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
e0nks0vk0
5-37
53-5-17
37]154.06
19]80]032-74
e0nks0[kk0
4-81
22&4&4
33]279-52
7]39]138-14
e0lks0vk0
2-56
0&17&0
17]712-18
15]055-35
fp0 vkoh
4-44
5&18&18
30]719-56
1]82]627-78
fp0 [kkdh
3-19
33&4&12
22]071-04
7]33]420-66
;ksx

171&0&03

46]33]389-23

Hkwfe ij fLFkr isMksa rFkk flpkbZ lk/kuksa dk ewY;kadu lEcfU/kr foHkkxksa djk;k x;k gS tks fuEu izdkj
gS%&
d- bekjrh o`{kksa dk ewY;kadu foHkkx }kjk 12]316-00
[k- Qynkj o`{kksa dk ewY;kadu ftyk m|ku vf/k0 1]49]902-83
x- ts0bZ0 vkj0bZ0,l0 fodkl [k.M vf/kdkjh
yks/kk }kjk 8]748-65

 ;ksx 1]70]967-48
 dqy ;ksx 48]04]356-71 "

Nature

of
land
Parta
Bandi
Rate per
Acre
Certified
compensat-ion
No-Soyam
2-5
53&10&2
17]712-10
9]83]114-55
M.Do.Aa.
5-37
53-5-17
37]154.06
19]80]032-74
M.Do.Kha.
4-81
22&4&4
33]279-52
7]39]138-14
M.So.Aa.
2-56
0&17&0
17]712-18
15]055-35
Chi.Abi.
4-44
5&18&18
30]719-56
1]82]627-78
Chi.Khaki.
3-19
33&4&12
22]071-04
7]33]420-66
Total

171&0&03

46]33]389-23
4 All. Tejvir Singh Vs State Of U.P.
309
"Valuation of trees and irrigation means was got done by concerned department which is
as under :-
a. Trees (Timber) Rs. 12,316/-
b. Trees (Fruitful/Fructuous)
 (Valuation by District Horticulture Officer)
 Rs. 1,49,902.83/-
c. Valuation by J.E.R.S, Block
 Development Officer Lodha Rs. 6,748.65
 Total: 1,70,967-48
 Grand Total : 48,04,35671"
 ( English Translation by Court )

4. Aggrieved therewith, claimant appellant filed application under section 18 for making reference
to District Judge for determining market value of acquired land and pursuant thereto, court below has passed
impugned award dated 23.5.2002. Disputed land of appellant is plot no. 65 Khasra no. 389 Area 6 Bigha 4
Biswa 16 Biswansi.

5. Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel for appellant contended that in some matters involving this very
acquisition proceedings, market value of some tenure holders has been determined between Rs. 70/- to 90 per
sq. yard. In LAR No. 40 of 1993, market value at Rs. 70/- per sq. yard has been determined and in LAR No.
1 of 1993, market value at Rs. 90/- per sq. yard has been determined. Claimant appellant filed Paper No. 35
Ga with respect to LAR no. 33 of 1992 wherein award dated 23.2.1991 has been made determining market
value at Rs. 90/- per sq. yard.

6. All these awards relate to same acquisition proceeding wherein notification under section 4(1) of
Act, 1894 was issued on 29.3.1989 in respect of same village, therefore, claimant-appellant has relied upon
aforesaid awards.

7. Court below has discarded aforesaid awards on the ground that awards have been made by Subordinate courts and not High Court, hence not binding and claimant-appellant ought to have made an
application under section 28 (a) of Act, 1894. Since no such application was moved by claimant-appellants,
therefore, award made in other LARs in respect of same acquisition proceeding would not be relevant.

8. In our view, reasons assigned by court below for discarding other awards made in respect of land
acquired under same acquisition proceedings are patently erroneous and misconceived. If these awards
pertain to same acquisition proceedings and, acquired land, which was subject matter of LAR No. 29 of 1996
was also similarly placed, Court below should have considered those awards. The same have also been
rejected wrongly on the ground that claimant-appellant has not filed application under section 28A of Act,
1894. If proceedings of other LARs pertain to same acquisition proceeding which have been decided
by Reference Courts, same should have been considered as valid and relevant material while
deciding LAR No. 29 of 1996.
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. It is then contended by learned counsel for respondent UPSIDC that UPSIDC challenged similar
award in LAR No. 690 of 2002 in appeal but the same has been dismissed by this Court holding market
value of acquired land at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard. Hence, no enhancement of market value is now permissible at
the instance of claimant-appellant.

10. It is true that one of awards in which market value was determined at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard was
challenged at the instance of UPSIDC in LAR No. 690 of 2002 and said appeal has been dismissed by this
Court but it does not mean that this Court has seized market value of acquired land at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard
and the same cannot be enhanced. Dismissal of appeal of UPSIDC against award in LAR No. 690 of 2002,
means that Court did not approve contention of UPSIDC that market value should have been lesser than Rs.
45/- per sq. yard. UPSIDC came to this Court, pleading that compensation should have been determined at a
lesser rate, which has not been approved by this Court but dismissal of appeal of UPSIDC would not mean
that Court has also approved the proposition that market value of acquired land cannot be and should not be
higher than Rs. 45/- per sq. yard, since that was not the question involved in appeal preferred by UPSIDC.

11. Thus the mere fact that appeal of UPSIDC has been dismissed, would not mean that market
value determined by Reference Court cannot be considered for enhancement in the light of other awards
which have been made in respect of acquired land which was subject matter of same acquisition proceedings,
as is the case in this appeal. It is also not in dispute that acquired land of appellant is similarly placed with the
land acquired and was subject matter of adjudication in LARs No. 33 of 1992, 1 of 1993 and 40 of 1993.

12. In the light of above discussion and considering the fact that exemplar awards relied by appellant
had been rejected for wholly illegal and invalid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that impugned
award of the judgment dated 23.05.2002 cannot be sustained.

13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. We set aside impugned award/judgment dated 23.5.2002,
and direct Reference Court to decide the matter again considering awards in other LARs including LAR No.
1 of 1993 (Paper No. 35 GA) filed by appellant. Reference Court shall pass fresh award expeditiously but in
any case not beyond six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 800 Of 2014

Lok Prahari Through Its General Secy. S.N. Shukla [P.I.L.] ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Thr. Secy. Legislative Deptt. Ministry Of Law & ...Respondent