First Appeal Nos. 95 and 910 of 2000. Case: Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Kashi Ram and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal Nos. 95 and 910 of 2000 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mahendra Pratap and Ajay Kumar Misra, Advs. and For Respondents: D.P. Singh, Shiv Sagar Singh, J.N. Sharma, V.B. Singh and Vijai Sinha, Advs. |
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma and Dinesh Gupta, JJ. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 4, 4(1), 6(1), 9; Registration Act, 1908 - Section 57 |
| Citation | 2015 (3) ADJ 428, 2015(3) ALJ 638, 2015 (109) ALR 61, 2015 127 RD239, (2015) 1 UPLBEC 240 |
| Judgement Date | November 13, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma and Dinesh Gupta, JJ.
-
Heard Mr. Mahendra Pratap, learned Counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority and Mr. D.P. Singh and Mr. Shiv Sagar Singh, learned Counsel for the claimants. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that in some of the First Appeals, the appellants/claimants left for heavenly abode and as such, substitution applications were filed on their behalf for bringing on record their legal heirs. There is no objection to these applications. Accordingly, all the substitution applications are allowed, after condoning the delay, if any, in preferring the substitution applications.
-
Let them be substituted in place of claimants during the course of the day.
-
In short, the facts of the case are that the land of the claimants pertaining to the village Makanpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad was acquired by the State of U.P. for planned development by the Ghaziabad Development Authority [in short referred to as 'GDA']. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12.9.1986, which was published, in the Gazette on 28.2.1987, whereas notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 24.2.1988. The possession of the land in question was taken by the State Government on 14.6.1988 and 29.6.1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) pronounced the award on 30.12.1989 and granted compensation at the rate of ` 50/- per square yard relying on the exemplar of plot No. 582, area 5 Bigha executed on 28.9.1987 by one Smt. Amarjeet Kaur in favour of GDA @ ` 50/- per square yard. The respondents and other persons whose land was acquired had filed objections to the said determination of compensation by the SLAO and the matter was referred to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The IV Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and VI Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad [hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court"] passed separate awards dated 19.4.1999 and 31.5.2000, whereby the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation from ` 50/- per Square Yard to ` 90/- per square yard.
-
Feeling aggrieved, the GDA has filed the above-captioned first appeals description of which is given from Sl. Nos. 1 to 60. In contrast, Appeals mentioned at Sl. Nos. 61 to 96 have been filed by the tenure holders-claimants for enhancement of compensation and lowering the deductions from 33% made towards development cost.
-
Since the land of all claimants was acquired by the same Notification, facts pertaining to the said Notification apply to all these respondents. The only difference is in the area of land which was owned by these respondents and has been taken away by the State in acquisition. Therefore, taking general note of the particulars of acquisition and the nature of land, would serve the purpose.
-
From perusal of the impugned award dated 19.4.1999, it reflects that the Reference Court, on the basis of pleadings, had framed five issues, which are as under:
(1) Whether the compensation awarded by S.L.A.O. is inadequate? If so to what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled?
(2) Whether the reference is time barred?
(3) Whether the reference is barred by Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act?
(4) Whether the reference is barred by principles of estoppel?
(5) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled?
-
While deciding issue No. 1, the Reference Court had recorded specific findings of fact that the present claimants seem to be very unfortunate because the land of the same village was acquired for 'Avas Vikas Parishad' and NOIDA and those farmers got higher rates, while the land of present claimants acquired for GDA got less compensation. Some land of village Makanpur was acquired for NOIDA and partly acquired for Avas Vikas Parishad and the remaining part was acquired for GDA. Therefore, the Reference Court was of the view that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was inadequate and enhanced the compensation from ` 50/- to ` 90/- per square yard.
-
As the appellants have not pressed the issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Reference Court decided the said issues in favour of the claimants.
-
As regard issue No. 5, the Reference Court, after taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get solatium @ 30% on the market rate and 12% per annum additional amount together with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation for the first year from the date of taking the possession and thereafter 15% per annum till the date of payment.
-
The main contention of the GDA is that the claimants accepted the compensation without protest and as such, it was not open for the tenure holders to file Reference under Section 18 of the Act. In this regard, he submits that on some applications, the word 'protest' was written by one different handwriting without signature appended thereto. Since there is an interpolation, it has to be considered that the claimants have accepted the compensation without protest.
-
Further, he submits that certified copies of sale exemplars, relied by the Collector, were produced before the Reference Court, but the Court concerned rejected the same for want of examination of witness. According to him, it is contrary to law as has been held by the Apex Court in P. Rama Reddy v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1995 (2) SCC 305. In this judgment, the Apex Court held that in any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.
-
While determining the compensation, the Reference Court relied on the sale deeds executed by the Tripati Builders in favour of Subhash Chand and Chandra Mohan. As the sale deeds were executed by the builders instead of the farmers, naturally the value of the land is on higher side and as such the same is liable to be set aside.
-
Next, he contended that in the impugned order dated 19.4.1999, the Reference Court determined the compensation as ` 90/- per sq. yard, after deducting 33% from ` 135/-, whereas in the impugned order dated 31.5.2000, the Reference Court fixed the compensation as ` 90/- per square yard without any deduction. Since there is variance in determination of compensation, this Court's interference is required in setting aside the impugned order.
-
Lastly, it has been vehemently contended by the Counsel for the GDA that the Reference Court erred in deducting 33% towards development cost overlooking the fact that the large chunk of land was acquired and sufficient land was to be left for internal developments, like road, sewerage, overhead water tank, water lines, parks, etc. According to him, deduction of at least 70% should have been allowed. To substantiate the aforesaid assertion, reliance has been placed upon Chandrashekar (D) by LRs and others v. Land Acquisition Officer and another, AIR 2012 SC 446. In para 15 of the report, it has been observed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial