Court No. - 59
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 595 of 1992 Appellant :- Ram Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- P.Krishna,A.K.Sachan,Baleshwar Chaturvedi,Mahboob Ahmad,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and Sri Ashutosh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent-U.P. State Electricity Board.
2. Briefly stated facts of the the present case are that by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") dated 09.02.1979 land measuring 18.50 acres of Village Khair, Pargana and Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh was acquired for establishing 132 KV Sub Station and Staff Quarter. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 04.02.1980. Possession was taken on 03.10.1980. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 30.03.1981 determining compensation @ Rs.8,380.92 per acre along with other statutory benefits and interest. In the aforesaid acquisition, Khasra Plot No.423 measuring 2 bighas 1 biswa, Khasra Plot No.1340 measuring 3 bighas 7 biswas, Khasra Plot No.1374 measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas total area 7 bighas 11 biswas belonging to the claimant- appellant was also acquired.
3. Dissatisfied with the offer made by the S.L.A.O., the claimant-appellant filed L.A.R. No.127 of 1984 which was disposed of by the court of IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh by the impugned order dated 31.07.1987 determining compensation @ Rs.4.80 per sq. yard along with other statutory benefits and interest. Aggrieved with this judgment, the claimant-appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deduction of about 90% has been applied by the court below while determining the compensation which is unjustified. He submits that the compensation determined by the court below is inadequate and therefore, it deserves to be enhanced on the basis of sale deed exemplar filed in evidence before the court below.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.
7. Undisputedly, no sale deed exemplar was filed by the claimant-appellant of a date prior to the date of acquisition. All the sale deed exemplars filed by him are much subsequent to the acquisition. However, the court below made basis a sale deed exemplar dated 07.12.1979 with regard to sale of about 150 sq. yard land by one Ram Chandra to Smt. Kalawati wife of Chhidda Singh. As per impugned judgment, the selling rate of the aforesaid sale deed comes to about Rs.96/- per sq. yard. The total land acquired under the acquisition in question was about 18.50 acres which includes claimant's land measuring of about 22,800 sq. yards land which is equivalent to 7 bighas and 11 biswas land. From the facts as discussed in the impugned judgment, it appears that after the acquisition Krishi Utpadan Mandi was established due to which the rates in the vicinity increased. Therefore, the deduction allowed by the court below towards the largeness of area so as to determine the market rate of the acquired land cannot be said to be arbitrary particularly when the appellant has completely failed to adduce any evidence in the form of sale deed exemplar of a date prior to the date of the acquisition. The compensation determined by the court below cannot be said to be excessive in view of the fact that sale deed exemplars of dates prior to the acquisition in question disclosed selling rate ranging from Rs.8,771/- per acre to Rs.10,316/- per acre.
8. Under the circumstances, I do not find that the compensation determined by the court below for the land of the claimant-appellant, is inadequate. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Nitin Verma