Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.
All the appeals are based on same set of facts raising a common questions of facts and law and are directed against the same order deciding the references, hence, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
First Appeal Nos. 644 of 2012, 505 of 2012, 502 of 2012, 507 of 2012 and 506 of 2012 have been filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation determined by Ist Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgment and decree dated 27-11-2002 passed on Land Acquisition References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act').
The rest of the appeals have been filed by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority challenging the same judgment and decree dated 27-11-2002 enhancing the compensation from 41.31 paise per sq. yard, awarded by Special Land Acquistion Officer, to Rs.140 per sq. yard.
We have heard Sri S.K. Tyagi appearing for the claimants and Sri Amit Manohar for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority .
The land belonging to the claimants was acquired vide notification dated 15-02-1992 under Section 4 of the Act. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was made on 22-03-1993. Possession was taken on 25-02-1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 16-12-1996 awarding a compensation @ Rs.41.31 paise per sq. yard. Thereafter, the claimants filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of comepnsation to Rs.250/- per sq. yard. The reference court clubbed the references and vide judgment and decree dated 23-12-2002 enhanced the compensation from Rs.41.31 paise per sq. yard to Rs.140 per sq. yard. The solatium, interest and other statutory dues were also awarded.
Land in question is situate in village Gejha Tilapatabad which admittedly is within close proximity and adjacent to villages Nagla Charan Das, Chhalera Banger and Bhangel Begampur. The reference court placed reliance, on arriving at a conclusion, that compensation is liable to be enhanced to Rs.140 per sq. yard, on another judgment of the reference court dated 30-05-1992 passed in L.A.R. No. 250 of 1990 and 276 of 1996 in respect of village Bhangel Begampur.
Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents have pointed out that decision in LAR No. 250 of 1990 in respect of village Bhangel Begampur was subject matter of challenge by the claimants therein by way of various First Appeals before this Court which were connected together decided by a detailed judgment and order dated 19-05-2010 passed by a Division Bench in leading First Appeal No. 1056 of 1990 (Raghuraj Singh & others v. State of U.P. & others). From a perusal of the judgment, we find that the said Division bench has relied upon the judgment in L.A.R. No. 392 of 1993 (Ram Chandra & others vs. State of U.P. & others) relating to village Bhangel Begampur filed as additional evidence wherein the rate of Rs.58.93 paise per sq. yard awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced to Rs.500 per sq. yard. But after making 1/3rd deduction towards development charges owning to the largeness of the area was scaled down to Rs.300/- per sq. yard. It would be relevant to quote following observations from the judgment in the case of Raghuraj Singh (Supra) :
?It seems that during the pendency of the instant appeals certain developments took place and subsequent to the same certain awards have been made by the reference court with respect to certain other acquired lands which are similar to that of the appellants herein. To bring the same in the notice of this court, the appellants have filed a supplementary paper-book along with an application for the same to be taken on record on 13.08.2003. It is important to mention here that this court can take notice of such additional evidences under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. provides that:
27.Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court - [1] The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in Appellate Court. But if [a] the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [aa] the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or [b] the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgement, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
[2] Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.
In accordance with the aforesaid provision, the appellant has produced a large number of document, which are on record, for consideration by this Court in the form of supplementary paper book. These are the awards made by the reference court in subsequent proceedings with respect to the similar land acquired by the defendant/State. According to the argument advanced by the appellant, the aforesaid awards given in these documents as well as the order of the reference court should be taken into account while considering the claim of the appellants. The appellants contend that they have been deprived of their valuable land by the State largesse without being comepnsated justifiably for the same.
The above mentioned documents were permitted to be included as part of the pleadings advanced by the appellants, as we think that the aforementioned documents are important to be taken into consideration by this Court so as to reach on correct factual position to decide the present case. ?
It has been further brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the present appeals, few of the original appellants have died and in place of them substitution applications have been moved by the legal representatives, the same have been allowed.
So far as the details of the abovementioned exemplare decisions of the reference court are concerned, which have been filed as additional evidences/supplementary paper-book, they can be summed up as hereunder:-
Firstly, the L.A.R. No. 392/93, Ram Chander & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the same related to the village Bhangel Begumpur, wherein the rate awarded by the S.L.A.O. was Rs. 58.93/- while the rate awarded by the reference court in the reference was Rs. 500/- per sq. yard. The award compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- , has, however, been scaled down to Rs. 300/- after making a deduction of 1/3rd of the amount in the name of development charges owing to largeness of the area acquired. The date of Notification in this matter was 30.11.1989 & 16.06.1990 under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, respectively.?
By means of a well considered judgment dated 19-05-2010, the Division Bench held that claimants therein were entitled to compensation @ Rs.297 per sq. yard along with other statutory dues.
Learned counsel for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority does not dispute the aforesaid facts nor has been able to point out any contrary judgment. We also find that enhancement of compensation to Rs.297 per sq. yard in respect of village Bhangel Begumpur also stands affirmed by another Division Bench judgment dated 11-102012 passed on First Appeal No. 564 of 1997. The Division Bench judgment in First Appeal No. 564 of 1997 was again based on judgment dated 19-05-2010 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 and other connected appeals affirming the rate of compensation of Rs.297/- per sq. yard awarded therein in respect of village Geha Tilapatabagh as well. It may be relevant to quote the following relevant paragraphs from the judgment of First Appeal No. 564 of 1997.
?The cases before us relates to village Bhangel Begumpur. Notifications were issued in the year 1983, 1986 and 1988 and possession was also taken in the year 1983, 1987 and 1989. So far as the other three villages namely, Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilapatabagh and Chhalera Banger, notifications were issued in the year 1986, 1988, 1991, 1992 and possession was also taken in the year 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1995 and the compensation was determined and ultimately under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the reference court in the year 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008 and 2010. All the four villages are adjacent to each other. The reference court ultimately granted similar relief in respect of the matter of Raghuraj Singh (Supera). Hence, we quantify the rate of compensation as above, the same will be paid following the directions as we have given in the case of of Raghuraj Singh (Supra).?
Thus the Division Bench affirmed the rate of Rs.297 per sq. yard to be awarded as market value of the land acquired in respect of village Gejha Tilapatabad. The market value of the land for the purpose of computing the compensation to be paid to the claimants in respect of village Gejha Tilapatabad having been determined as Rs.297/- per sq. yard, the same is also liable to be paid in the case of appellant of First Appeal No. 202 of 2009 [Govind (now deceased) vs. State of U.P. & others] along with other statutory dues and we see no reason to take a different view in this matter.
Thus the First Appeals No. 496 of 2003, 503 of 2003, 507 of 2003, 494 of 2003, 498 of 2003, 497 of 2003, 500 of 2003, 504 of 2003, 506 pf 2003 and 499 of 2003 filed by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority challenging the enhancement made by the District Judge in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.
The First Appeal Nos. 644 of 2012, 505 of 2012, 502 of 2012, 507 of 2012 and 506 of 2012 filed by claimant-appellants for enhancement of compensation are allowed and the claimant-appellants are held entitled for payment of compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq. yard along with 30% solatium, interest and other statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.3.2014 nd