caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Ajai Pal Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 September, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5738-5739 OF 2021
Ajai Pal Singh & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5740 OF 2021
Smt. Barfi Devi (Dead) through L.R.s. & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the High Court of
judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1983 and 487 of 1984
by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.23
16:33:10 IST
Reason:
confirmed the judgment and the order passed by the Reference Court
awarding the compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs.4.628 per
1
square yard, original landowners have preferred the present appeals
being Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of 2021. The appellants have also
challenged the common order dated 02.11.2016 in Civil Misc. Application
No.167571 of 2016 in First Appeal No. 487 of 1984 by which the High
Court has dismissed the application for bringing on record certain
additional documents filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
2. Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has arisen out of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court
has dismissed the First Appeal No. 203 of 1983 and has confirmed the
judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court awarding
the compensation for the lands acquired @ Rs.6/- per square yard.
Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of 2021
3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) was issued on 30.04.1976 proposing to
acquire 589 bigha, 6 biswa and 14 biswansi land. The land was to be
acquired for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as “NOIDA”) constituted under the provisions of U.P.
Industrial Development Act, 1976 for the purpose of planned
development of industries in the area within the jurisdiction of NOIDA.
2
Declaration under Section 6 was published on 01.05.1976. Possession
of land was taken by the Collector on 31.07.1977. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer declared the award for compensation on 28.03.1977
offering compensation @ Rs.10,200/- per bigha, i.e., Rs.2.38 per square
yard. At the instance of the landowners, a Reference was made to the
Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to
enhance the amount of compensation. Before the Reference Court,
landowners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square
yard. However, after considering the material on record, the Reference
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,000/- per bigha (Rs.4.628
per square yard).
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation to
Rs.14,000/- per bigha only (Rs.4.628 per square yard), the landowners
preferred the First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1983 and 487 of 1984 before the
High Court of judicature at Allahabad and by the impugned common
judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals.
Before the High Court, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 was
preferred to bring on record certain documents as additional evidence,
which was also dismissed by the High Court by order dated 02.11.2016.
3
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeals
and confirming the order passed by the Reference Court enhancing the
compensation to Rs.4.628 per square yard, the claimants – original
landowners have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021
6. So far as Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 is concerned, a notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to acquire 154
bigha 9 biswa and 11 biswansi of land at Village Baraula, Pargana &
District Ghaziabad also for the development of the NOIDA and for the
said purpose, the notification under Section 4 was issued on 16.09.1976.
Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.09.1976. At the instance
of the original landowners, reference was made before the District Court
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court – the
learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad enhanced the
compensation to Rs.18,150/- per bigha (Rs.6 per square yard). The
High Court by the impugned judgment and order in First Appeal No.203
of 1983 has dismissed the said appeal for enhancing the compensation
and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court.
Hence the present appeal.
4
7. Shri Harshvir Pratap Sharma, learned senior counsel has
appeared on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of
2021 and Dr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel has appeared on behalf
of the appellants in Civil Appeal No.5740 of 2021. Shri Rachit Mittal,
learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent – NOIDA.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants
have prayed to enhance the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard
relying upon the judgment and order passed by the High Court in First
Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 titled Mangu and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. It is
submitted that while disposing of First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 by which
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard,
the High Court also disposed of the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52
of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with respect to the lands acquired
in the year 1977. It is submitted that aforesaid four appeals were with
regard to the acquisition held in the year 1977 and while passing a
common judgment and order in First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004, i.e., in the
case of Mangu and Ors. (supra), the compensation was enhanced to
Rs.297/- per square yard. It is submitted that therefore as the High
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard in
aforesaid First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and
17 of 1987 with regard to the land acquired in the year 1977, in the
present case also, the claimants pray to enhance the compensation to
5
Rs.297/- per square yard, as in the present case, the lands had been
acquired in the year 1976. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court also
vide order dated 27.01.2016 has dismissed the special leave petition
challenging the judgment dated 03.12.2014 in the case of Mangu and
Ors. (supra).
8.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants – original claimants relying upon the map of District
Gautam Budh Nagar that village Baraula (land acquired in the present
case) and village Kakrala Khaspur (land acquired in the case of Mangu
and Ors. (supra)) are adjoining to each other. It is submitted that
appellants’ land being similarly situated, the present appellants are also
entitled to the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard on the basis of
the principle of parity and equality.
8.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants of Civil
Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has submitted that alternatively the appellants
are also claiming the enhanced compensation considering the
compensation in the case of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (First
Appeal No.564 of 1997), where the acquisition proceedings
commenced in the year 1983 and the compensation was enhanced to
Rs.297/- per square yard. It is submitted that the appellants, whose land
6
was acquired in the year 1976 can be held entitled for the compensation
by adopting the formula of deducting 10% depreciation each year and
after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, the appellants can be
provided with the enhanced compensation accordingly.
8.3 Dr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has also relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21, a case related with acquisition of
65 villages of NOIDA, in which case, this Hon’ble Court not only granted
enhanced compensation of 64.7% but also provided 105 developed
abadi plot of the land acquired of each of the landowners to balance the
equity between the landowners / farmers and the State. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
that first appeals before the High Court have been pending for 34 years
and the appellants – original landowners are struggling for enhanced
compensation for last 45 years after losing their only source of livelihood,
i.e., their agriculture land in above acquisition proceedings held in the
year 1976. It is submitted, therefore, that the issue of enhancement of
compensation may also be considered from that angle and considering
the suffering of the land losers and the farmers.
7
9. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Mittal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA.
9.1 Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA has
vehemently submitted that the judgment and order passed by the High
Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) shall not be applicable to
the present acquisition and the same cannot be said to be comparable
at all. It is submitted that it is true that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987;
52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with regard to the acquisition of
the year 1977 also came to be disposed of alongwith First Appeal No.
1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) and the High Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard, it is submitted
that inadvertently and because of the fact that the High Court disposed
of the batch of appeals alongwith First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 with
regard to the acquisition of the year 1991, neither it was noticed by the
High Court nor it was noticed by the learned counsel for the NOIDA and
of the State that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of
1987 and 17 of 1987 were with respect to the acquisition in the year
1977 and nothing was brought to the notice of the High Court that
aforesaid four first appeals were related to the acquisition of 1977. It is
submitted that without noticing that the aforesaid four first appeals were
with regard to the acquisition of the year 1977, the aforesaid four first
appeals came to be disposed of alongwith First Appeal No.1100 of 2004
8
in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) mechanically and without
noticing the difference between the dates of acquisition and inadvertently
the compensation was enhanced to Rs.297/- per square yard alongwith
First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra).
It is submitted that having realized the aforesaid mistake immediately the
review applications have been preferred before the High Court and the
same are pending.
9.2 However, Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
NOIDA has fairly considered that in view of the decision of the High
Court subsequently confirmed by this Court in the case of co-owner of
the same piece of land as of the appellants by which the High Court
awarded the compensation of Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard, to that
extent, the appeals can be allowed and the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court can be modified enhancing the
compensation to Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.
9.3 Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA has
also further pointed out that so far as the reliance placed on the
judgment of the High Court in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. –
First Appeal No. 458 of 1984 dated 11.03.2015 is concerned, it is
submitted that the said order has been subsequently reviewed by the
High Court by order dated 27.05.2016 and the compensation has been
9
fixed at Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard. It is submitted that the order
passed by the High Court in review determining the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard has been confirmed by this Court by
order dated 30.09.2016.
9.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA has also relied
upon the following judgments and order passed by the High Court
determining the compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with
regard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976:-
S.No. Particulars Remarks
1. Madan Lal Sharma Vs. Hon’ble High Court fixed the
State compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa
per sq. yard vide order dated
08.09.2009
2. Bhola Vs. State of U.P. Hon’ble High Court fixed the
compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa
per sq. yard vide order dated
04.11.2016
3. Gyan Chand Vs. State of Hon’ble High Court fixed the
U.P. compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa
per sq. yard vide order dated
14.12.2016.
4. Daal Chand Vs. State of Hon’ble High Court fixed the
U.P. compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa
per sq. yard vide order dated
03.11.2016
5. Jagdish Chand Vs. State Hon’ble High Court fixed the
of U.P. compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa
per sq. yard vide order dated
21.12.2016 the said order was
challenged before this Hon’ble
Court and the SLP was withdrawn
vide order dated 19.01.2018
10
It is submitted therefore that consistently with regard to the
acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the compensation has
been fixed at Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.
9.5 Now, so far as the alternative submission made by Dr. Rajeev
Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners
in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 to determine the compensation
considering the decision in the case of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. (supra) where the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year
1983 and the compensation was fixed at Rs.297/- per square yard and
to determine the compensation by adopting a formula of deducting 10%
depreciation each year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07
years to determine the compensation accordingly, it is vehemently
submitted that the decision in the judgment and order in the case of
Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) cannot be relied upon firstly
on the ground that the acquisition in the said case was of the year 1983,
i.e., after approximately 07 years from the date of acquisition in the
present case and secondly on the ground that there has been much
development after 1980 with respect to the NOIDA area and the
development plan was also sanctioned in the year 1983.
11
10. Making above submissions, it is prayed to reject the claim of the
landowners to claim compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that so far as
filing of the review applications by the NOIDA authority in the aforesaid
four First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of
1987 are concerned, it is submitted that these review applications have
been filed only on 17.02.2019 and they are still defective and not yet
listed before the High Court. It is submitted that these review
applications have been filed by the NOIDA authority only when the
appellants referred the aforesaid four first appeals in the additional
documents. It is, therefore, requested not to consider the subsequent
events after the filing of the review applications in the present appeals.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at
length.
12.1 The only point for determination in these appeals is whether the
present appellants – landowners/claimants are justified in claiming
compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard claiming parity of judgment
dated 03.12.2014 passed in First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 – Mangu and
Ors. (supra) and the common judgment and order disposing of the First
Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987
alongwith the First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 – Mangu and Ors. (supra)
12
determining the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard?
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
having perused the decision of the High Court in the case of Mangu and
Ors. (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the claimants-
landowners, it emerges that as such in the case of Mangu and Ors.
(supra), notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year
1991, but in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act
had been issued on 01.06.1976. Even the possession of the land in the
case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) was taken over in 1992 and in the
present case the possession of the land had been taken over in 1976.
In the present case, the award was declared by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 25.02.1978 whereas in the case of Mangu and
Ors. (supra), the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 20.09.1993 and, therefore, the said judgment and order
passed by the High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra)
cannot be said to be comparable at all because of the time gap of
approximately 15 years between the dates of acquisition. However, it is
the case on behalf of the appellants that while disposing of the First
Appeal No.1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra), the
High Court also disposed of the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of
1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with regard to the acquisition of the
year 1977 and the High Court also enhanced the compensation to
13
Rs.297/- per square yard in the said first appeals with regard to the
acquisition in the year 1977 and therefore on the ground of parity and
equality, the claimants with regard to the acquisition of the year 1976 are
entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard.
The aforesaid seems to be very attractive but cannot be accepted
for the following reasons:-
(i) That High Court decided the batch of appeals alongwith First
Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors.
(supra);
(ii) It appears that inadvertently and without noticing that so far
as the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of
1987 and 17 of 1987 are concerned, they were with regard to
the acquisition of the year 1977, inadvertently and by
mistake they were tagged alongwith First Appeal No. 1100 of
2004;
(iii) Nobody specifically pointed out that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21
of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 were with
regard to the acquisition of 1977. Therefore, without noticing
the aforesaid reference mechanically First Appeal (D) Nos.
21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with
regard to the acquisition of year 1977 came to be disposed
of along with First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 and mechanically
14
the compensation with regard to the acquisition of 1977
came to be enhanced to Rs.297/- per square yard;
(iv) That as such it was a mistake on the part of the High Court in
not noticing the difference with regard to the acquisition of
the years 1977 and 1991;
(v) Nobody can be permitted to take the benefit of the mistake
either of the Court or of any party, which mistake has
occurred inadvertently and without noticing the peculiar facts.
As such it was the duty of the Advocate for the claimants to
point out the correct facts;
(vi) Even otherwise it is to be noted that immediately after
noticing the above, the review applications have been
preferred in the aforesaid first appeals and which are
reported to be pending.
13.1 Assuming for the time being that as the review applications are
pending, this Court may not take note of the subsequent events of filing
the review applications, which are yet to be decided by the High Court, in
that case also and for the reasons stated above and considering the
obvious mistake referred to herein above, the claimants in the present
case cannot claim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relying
upon the decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) with regard to
the acquisition of the year 1991.
15
13.2 At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the claimants have
also heavily relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of
Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. in First Appeal No. 458 of 1984 determining
the compensation @ Rs. 297/- per square yard with respect to the lands
acquired by notification dated 16.09.1976. However, it is required to be
noted that the judgment and order dated 11.03.2015 passed in First
Appeal No.458 of 1984 in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. (supra)
came to be subsequently reviewed by the High Court allowing the Civil
Misc. Review Application No.174702 of 2015 in which the High Court
subsequently noted and determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12
paisa per square yard by observing in paragraph 31 as under:-
“31. Since in the matter of same acquisition and of the
same village and also in acquisitions of land adjoining or
nearby villages by notifications of Section 4(1) of the Act
of the years 1976 and 1977, this court determined the
compensation @ Rs.28.12 per square yard and also
since the claimants appellants or the respondents have
failed to point out any distinguishing feature in the
present set of facts and as such I have no hesitation to
hold that the claimants appellants are entitled to
compensation of their acquired land @ Rs.28.12 per
square yard.”
It is reiterated that decision in I.A. No. 116578 of 2021 reducing the
compensation to Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard for the lands acquired
in the year 1976 has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated
16
30.09.2016.
13.3 From the table reproduced hereinabove, it can also be seen that
with regard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977
consistently the High Court has determined the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard. Even in one case, i.e., in the case of
Jagdish Chand Vs. State of U.P. (supra) where the High Court
determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with
regard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the special
leave petition has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court.
Therefore, as such at the most, the claimants can be said to be entitled
to compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to the
lands acquired in the year 1976-1977.
14. Now, so far as the alternative submission made on behalf of the
claimants in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 to determine the
compensation on the basis of the judgment of the High Court in the case
of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) where the acquisition
proceedings commenced in the year 1983 and the compensation was
determined @ Rs.297/- per square yard is concerned, the aforesaid
cannot be accepted. The appellants are claiming that in the case of the
appellants, the land was acquired in the year 1976 and in the case of
Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) the land was acquired in the
17
year 1983, by adopting a formula of deducting 10% depreciation each
year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, the
compensation may be determined, the aforesaid cannot be accepted.
As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determined
for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at
all. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be
said to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on record
that in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, there
was no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the
development had taken place and even the development plan has been
sanctioned at the time when the land was acquired in the year 1983,
therefore, the aforesaid request cannot be accepted.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the appeals
are partly allowed. It is held that the original landowners – claimants –
appellants herein are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per
square yard with respect to the lands acquired in the year 1976. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are modified to
the above extent. It goes without saying that the claimants shall be
entitled to the statutory benefits as may be available under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced amount of
compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.
18
All the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, however,
there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2021. [A.S. BOPANNA]
19
Comments