AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 23 September 2021

[2021] 7 S.C.R. 671

AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS.

v.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 5738 – 5739 of 2021)

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Enhancement of compensation– Plea of – Two separate Land Acquisition proceedings were carriedout to acquire lands – In one proceeding notification u/s.4 wasissued on 30.04.1976 – The Special Land Acquisition Officerdeclared the award for compensation @Rs.2.38 per square yard –However, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation toRs.4.628 per square yard – Aggrieved, the land owners filed appealsbefore the High Court, which were dismissed – In another proceeding,notification u/s.4 was issued on 16.09.1976 – The Reference Courtenhanced the compensation to Rs.6 per square yard – The HighCourt dismissed the appeal for enhanced compensation andconfirmed the judgment passed by the Reference Court – Both theappeals are before the Supreme Court – Appellants from both sidespleaded to enhance the compensation to Rs. 297/- per square yardby relying on the judgment and order passed by the High Court inMangu and Ors. v. State of U.P. – Held: The case of Mangu andOrs., notification u/s. 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1991, butin the present case the notification u/s. 4 of the Act was issued inthe year 1976 – The said judgment and order passed by the HighCourt in the case of Mangu and Ors. cannot be said to becomparable because of the time gap of approximately 15 yearsbetween the dates of acquisition – The claimants in the present casecannot claim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relyingupon the decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. with regard to theacquisition of the year 1991 – However, in the case of Jagmal Vs.State of U.P., the High Court noted and determined the compensation@ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard and same was confirmed by theSupreme Court – Therefore, as such at the most, the claimants canbe said to be entitled to compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per squareyard with regard to the lands acquired in the year 1976-1977.

671

A

B

CDEF

G

H

672SUPREME COURT REPORTS

APartly allowing the Appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Having perused the decision of the High Courtin the case of Mangu and Ors., which has been heavily reliedupon by the claimants- landowners, it emerges that as such inthe case of Mangu and Ors., notification under Section 4 of theBAct was issued in the year 1991, but in the present case thenotification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on01.06.1976. Even the possession of the land in the case of Manguand Ors. was taken over in 1992 and in the present case thepossession of the land had been taken over in 1976. In the presentcase, the award was declared by the Special Land AcquisitionCOfficer on 25.02.1978 whereas in the case of Mangu and Ors.,the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officeron 20.09.1993 and, therefore, the said judgment and order passedby the High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. cannot be saidto be comparable at all because of the time gap of approximatelyD15 years between the dates of acquisition. Furthermore, the HighCourt decided the batch of First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in thecase of Mangu and Ors. along with the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987. Nobodyspecifically pointed out that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 were with regard to theEacquisition of 1977. Therefore, without noticing the aforesaidreference mechanically First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with regard to the acquisitionof year 1977 came to be disposed of along with First AppealNo.1100 of 2004 and mechanically the compensation with regard

Fto the acquisition of 1977 came to be enhanced to Rs.297/- persquare yard. That as such it was a mistake on the part of the HighCourt in not noticing the difference with regard to the acquisitionof the years 1977 and 1991. Nobody can be permitted to take thebenefit of the mistake either of the Court or of any party. [Para13][681-B-F; 682-D]G

3. Assuming for the time being that as the reviewapplications are pending, this Court may not take note of thesubsequent events of filing the review applications, which areyet to be decided by the High Court, in that case also and for thereasons stated above and considering the obvious mistakeH

referred to herein above, the claimants in the present case cannotclaim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relying uponthe decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. with regard to theacquisition of the year 1991. [Para 13.1][682-F-G]

4. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that theclaimants have also heavily relied upon the judgment of the HighCourt in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. in First Appeal No.458 of 1984 determining the compensation @ Rs. 297/- per squareyard with respect to the lands acquired by notification dated16.09.1976. However, it is required to be noted that the judgmentand order dated 11.03.2015 passed in First Appeal No.458 of 1984in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. came to be subsequentlyreviewed by the High Court allowing the Civil Misc. ReviewApplication No.174702 of 2015 in which the High Courtsubsequently noted and determined the compensation @Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard. It is reiterated that decision inI.A. No. 116578 of 2021 reducing the compensation to Rs.28.12paisa per square yard for the lands acquired in the year 1976 hasbeen confirmed by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2016. [Para13.2][682-G-H; 683-A-B; 683-D]

5. Even in one case, i.e., in the case of Jagdish Chand Vs.State of U.P. where the High Court determined the compensation@ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to the acquisitionpertaining to the year 1976-1977, the special leave petition hasbeen dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Therefore, as suchat the most, the claimants can be said to be entitled tocompensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard tothe lands acquired in the year 1976-1977. [Para 13.3][683-E-F]

6. The appellants are claiming that in the case of theappellants, the land was acquired in the year 1976 and in the caseof Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. the land was acquired in theyear 1983, by adopting a formula of deducting 10% depreciationeach year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, thecompensation may be determined, the aforesaid cannot beaccepted. As per the settled preposition of law, the compensationdetermined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Ato be comparable at all. Even otherwise in the facts andcircumstances, the same cannot be said to be comparable becauseof the fact that it has come on record that in the year 1976 whenthe lands in question were acquired, there was no developmentat all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the development hadtaken place and even the development plan has been sanctionedBat the time when the land was acquired in the year 1983, therefore,the aforesaid request cannot be accepted. [Para 14][683-H; 684-A-C]

Mangu and ors. v. State of U.P. Appeal No. 1100 of2004 decided by the High Court; Khazan and Ors. v.CState of U.P. (First Appeal No. 564 of 1997 decided bythe High Court); Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradeshand Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR 512 –referred to.

Jagmal v. State of U.P. ( First Appeal No. 458 of 1984Ddecided by the High Court and confirmed by theSupreme Court by order dated 30.09.2016) – reliedon.

Case Law Reference

[2015] 7 SCR 512referred toPara 8.3ECIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.5738-5739 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Application No.167571 of 2016in first appeal No.487 of 1984 and order dated 15.12.2016 in first appealFNo.487 of 1984.

With

Civil Appeal No.5740 of 2021.

Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., K. S. Rana, O. N. Singh,GDr. Rajeev Sharma, Pankaj Dubey, Prashant Sharma, Raghuvir Sharma,Vipin Kumar Sharma, Dharmendra Sharma, Ms. Shipra Shukla,Ms. Meena Hasan, Advs. for the Appellants.

V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,Anurag Tiwari, Ms. Vaidhruti Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Rachit Mittal,HManohar Naagar, Sudhir Naagar, Advs. for the Respondents.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the High Court ofjudicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1983 and 487 of1984 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and hasconfirmed the judgment and the order passed by the Reference Courtawarding the compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs.4.628 per squareyard, original landowners have preferred the present appeals being CivilAppeal Nos. 5738-5739 of 2021. The appellants have also challengedthe common order dated 02.11.2016 in Civil Misc. Application No.167571of 2016 in First Appeal No. 487 of 1984 by which the High Court hasdismissed the application for bringing on record certain additionaldocuments filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has arisen out of the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Courthas dismissed the First Appeal No. 203 of 1983 and has confirmed thejudgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court awardingthe 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 proposingto acquire 589 bigha, 6 biswa and 14 biswansi land. The land was to beacquired for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafterreferred to as “NOIDA”) constituted under the provisions of U.P.Industrial Development Act, 1976 for the purpose of planned developmentof industries in the area within the jurisdiction of NOIDA. Declarationunder Section 6 was published on 01.05.1976. Possession of land wastaken by the Collector on 31.07.1977. The Special Land AcquisitionOfficer declared the award for compensation on 28.03.1977 offeringcompensation @ Rs.10,200/- per bigha, i.e., Rs.2.38 per square yard.At the instance of the landowners, a Reference was made to theReference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to enhancethe amount of compensation. Before the Reference Court, landownersclaimed compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square yard. However,after considering the material on record, the Reference Court enhancedthe compensation to Rs.14,000/- per bigha (Rs.4.628 per square yard).

A

BC

D

EF

GH

A4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation toRs.14,000/- per bigha only (Rs.4.628 per square yard), the landownerspreferred the First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1983 and 487 of 1984 before theHigh Court of judicature at Allahabad and by the impugned commonjudgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals. BeforeBthe High Court, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 was preferredto bring on record certain documents as additional evidence, which wasalso dismissed by the High Court by order dated 02.11.2016.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appealsCand confirming the order passed by the Reference Court enhancing thecompensation to Rs.4.628 per square yard, the claimants - originallandowners have preferred the present appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021

D6. So far as Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 is concerned, anotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued toacquire 154 bigha 9 biswa and 11 biswansi of land at Village Baraula,Pargana & District Ghaziabad also for the development of the NOIDAand for the said purpose, the notification under Section 4 was issued on16.09.1976. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.09.1976. AtEthe instance of the original landowners, reference was made before theDistrict Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. TheReference Court – the learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabadenhanced the compensation to Rs.18,150/- per bigha (Rs.6 per squareyard). The High Court by the impugned judgment and order in FirstFAppeal No.203 of 1983 has dismissed the said appeal for enhancing thecompensation and confirmed the judgment and order passed by theReference Court. Hence the present appeal.

7. Shri Harshvir Pratap Sharma, learned senior counsel hasappeared on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 ofG2021 and Dr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel has appeared on behalfof 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 appellantshave prayed to enhance the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yardHrelying 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 issubmitted that while disposing of First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 by whichthe 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; 52of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with respect to the lands acquiredin the year 1977. It is submitted that aforesaid four appeals were withregard to the acquisition held in the year 1977 and while passing acommon judgment and order in First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004, i.e., in thecase of Mangu and Ors. (supra), the compensation was enhanced toRs.297/- per square yard. It is submitted that therefore as the HighCourt enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard in aforesaidFirst Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of1987 with regard to the land acquired in the year 1977, in the presentcase also, the claimants pray to enhance the compensation to Rs.297/-per square yard, as in the present case, the lands had been acquired inthe year 1976. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court also vide orderdated 27.01.2016 has dismissed the special leave petition challengingthe judgment dated 03.12.2014 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra).

8.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellants - original claimants relying upon the map of DistrictGautam Budh Nagar that village Baraula (land acquired in the presentcase) and village Kakrala Khaspur (land acquired in the case of Manguand Ors. (supra)) are adjoining to each other. It is submitted thatappellants’ land being similarly situated, the present appellants are alsoentitled to the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard on the basis ofthe principle of parity and equality.

8.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants of CivilAppeal No. 5740 of 2021 has submitted that alternatively the appellantsare also claiming the enhanced compensation considering thecompensation in the case of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (FirstAppeal No. 564 of 1997), where the acquisition proceedingscommenced in the year 1983 and the compensation was enhanced toRs.297/- per square yard. It is submitted that the appellants, whose landwas acquired in the year 1976 can be held entitled for the compensationby adopting the formula of deducting 10% depreciation each year andafter deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, the appellants can beprovided with the enhanced compensation accordingly.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8.3 Dr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has also relied upon thedecision of this Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. State of UttarPradesh and Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21, a case related with acquisitionof 65 villages of NOIDA, in which case, this Hon’ble Court not onlygranted enhanced compensation of 64.7% but also provided 105Bdeveloped abadi plot of the land acquired of each of the landowners tobalance the equity between the landowners/farmers and the State. It isfurther submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellants that first appeals before the High Court have been pendingfor 34 years and the appellants - original landowners are struggling forCenhanced compensation for last 45 years after losing their only sourceof livelihood, i.e., their agriculture land in above acquisition proceedingsheld in the year 1976. It is submitted, therefore, that the issue ofenhancement of compensation may also be considered from that angleand considering the suffering of the land losers and the farmers.

A

D9. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Mittal, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA.

9.1 Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDAhas vehemently submitted that the judgment and order passed by theHigh Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) shall not beEapplicable to the present acquisition and the same cannot be said to becomparable 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 theacquisition of the year 1977 also came to be disposed of alongwith FirstAppeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) andthe High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard,Fit is submitted that inadvertently and because of the fact that the HighCourt disposed of the batch of appeals alongwith First Appeal No. 1100of 2004 with regard to the acquisition of the year 1991, neither it wasnoticed by the High Court nor it was noticed by the learned counsel forthe NOIDA and of the State that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52Gof 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 were with respect to the acquisitionin the year 1977 and nothing was brought to the notice of the High Courtthat aforesaid four first appeals were related to the acquisition of 1977.It is submitted that without noticing that the aforesaid four first appealswere with regard to the acquisition of the year 1977, the aforesaid fourfirst appeals came to be disposed of alongwith First Appeal No.1100 ofH2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) mechanically and without noticing the difference between the dates of acquisition and inadvertentlythe compensation was enhanced to Rs.297/- per square yard alongwithFirst Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra).It is submitted that having realized the aforesaid mistake immediatelythe review applications have been preferred before the High Court andthe same are pending.

9.2 However, Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofNOIDA has fairly considered that in view of the decision of the HighCourt subsequently confirmed by this Court in the case of co-owner ofthe same piece of land as of the appellants by which the High Courtawarded the compensation of Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard, to thatextent, the appeals can be allowed and the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court can be modified enhancing the compensationto Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.

9.3 Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDAhas also further pointed out that so far as the reliance placed on thejudgment 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 issubmitted that the said order has been subsequently reviewed by theHigh Court by order dated 27.05.2016 and the compensation has beenfixed at Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard. It is submitted that the orderpassed by the High Court in review determining the compensation @Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard has been confirmed by this Court byorder dated 30.09.2016.

9.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA has alsorelied upon the following judgments and order passed by the High Courtdetermining the compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard withregard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976:- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

680SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AIt is submitted therefore that consistently with regard to theacquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the compensation has beenfixed at Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.

9.5 Now, so far as the alternative submission made by Dr. RajeevSharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landownersBin Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 to determine the compensationconsidering the decision in the case of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State ofU.P. (supra) where the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year1983 and the compensation was fixed at Rs.297/- per square yard andto determine the compensation by adopting a formula of deducting 10%depreciation each year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07Cyears to determine the compensation accordingly, it is vehementlysubmitted that the decision in the judgment and order in the case ofKhazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.(supra) cannot be relied upon firstlyon 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 theDpresent case and secondly on the ground that there has been muchdevelopment after 1980 with respect to the NOIDA area and thedevelopment plan was also sanctioned in the year 1983.

10. Making above submissions, it is prayed to reject the claim ofthe landowners to claim compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard.

E

11. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that so faras filing of the review applications by the NOIDA authority in theaforesaid four First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of1987 and 17 of 1987 are concerned, it is submitted that these reviewapplications have been filed only on 17.02.2019 and they are still defectiveFand not yet listed before the High Court. It is submitted that thesereview applications have been filed by the NOIDA authority only whenthe appellants referred the aforesaid four first appeals in the additionaldocuments. It is, therefore, requested not to consider the subsequentevents after the filing of the review applications in the present appeals.

G12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective partiesat length.

G12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective partiesat length.

12.1 The only point for determination in these appeals is whetherthe present appellants – landowners/claimants are justified in claimingcompensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard claiming parity of judgmentdated 03.12.2014 passed in First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 - Mangu andH

Ors. (supra) and the common judgment and order disposing of the FirstAppeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987alongwith the First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 - Mangu and Ors. (supra)determining the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard?

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand having perused the decision of the High Court in the case of Manguand 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 year1991, but in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Acthad been issued on 01.06.1976. Even the possession of the land in thecase of Mangu and Ors. (supra) was taken over in 1992 and in thepresent case the possession of the land had been taken over in 1976. Inthe present case, the award was declared by the Special Land AcquisitionOfficer on 25.02.1978 whereas in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra),the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on20.09.1993 and, therefore, the said judgment and order passed by theHigh Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) cannot be said tobe comparable at all because of the time gap of approximately 15 yearsbetween the dates of acquisition. However, it is the case on behalf ofthe appellants that while disposing of the First Appeal No.1100 of 2004in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra), the High Court also disposedof the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17of 1987 with regard to the acquisition of the year 1977 and the HighCourt also enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard inthe said first appeals with regard to the acquisition in the year 1977 andtherefore on the ground of parity and equality, the claimants with regardto the acquisition of the year 1976 are entitled to the enhancedcompensation of Rs.297/- per square yard.

The aforesaid seems to be very attractive but cannot be acceptedfor the following reasons:-

(i) That High Court decided the batch of appeals alongwithFirst Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu andOrs. (supra);

(ii) It appears that inadvertently and without noticing that sofar as the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987;162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 are concerned, they were with A

BC

D

EF

G

H

regard to the acquisition of the year 1977, inadvertentlyand by mistake they were tagged alongwith First AppealNo. 1100 of 2004; A

(iii) Nobody specifically pointed out that First Appeal (D) Nos.21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 wereBwith regard to the acquisition of 1977. Therefore, withoutnoticing the aforesaid reference mechanically First Appeal(D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of1987 with regard to the acquisition of year 1977 came to bedisposed of along with First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 andmechanically the compensation with regard to the acquisitionCof 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 Courtin not noticing the difference with regard to the acquisitionof the years 1977 and 1991; D(v)Nobody can be permitted to take the benefit of the mistakeeither of the Court or of any party, which mistake hasoccurred inadvertently and without noticing the peculiarfacts. As such it was the duty of the Advocate for theclaimants to point out the correct facts; E(vi)Even otherwise it is to be noted that immediately afternoticing the above, the review applications have beenpreferred in the aforesaid first appeals and which arereported to be pending.

13.1 Assuming for the time being that as the review applicationsFare pending, this Court may not take note of the subsequent events offiling the review applications, which are yet to be decided by the HighCourt, in that case also and for the reasons stated above and consideringthe obvious mistake referred to herein above, the claimants in the presentcase cannot claim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relyingupon the decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) with regardGto the acquisition of the year 1991.

13.2 At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the claimantshave also heavily relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the caseof Jagmal Vs. State of U.P.in First Appeal No. 458 of 1984determining the compensation @ Rs. 297/- per square yard with respectHto 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 passedin First Appeal No.458 of 1984 in the case of Jagmal Vs. State ofU.P.(supra) came to be subsequently reviewed by the High Courtallowing the Civil Misc. Review Application No.174702 of 2015 in whichthe 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 samevillage and also in acquisitions of land adjoining or nearby villagesby notifications of Section 4(1) of the Act of the years 1976 and1977, this court determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12 persquare yard and also since the claimants appellants or therespondents have failed to point out any distinguishing feature inthe present set of facts and as such I have no hesitation to holdthat the claimants appellants are entitled to compensation of theiracquired land @ Rs.28.12 per square yard.”

It is reiterated that decision in I.A. No. 116578 of 2021 reducingthe compensation to Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard for the lands acquiredin the year 1976 has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated30.09.2016.

13.3 From the table reproduced hereinabove, it can also be seenthat with regard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977consistently the High Court has determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12paisa per square yard. Even in one case, i.e., in the case of JagdishChand Vs. State of U.P. (supra) where the High Court determined thecompensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to theacquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the special leave petitionhas been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Therefore, as such atthe 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 theyear 1976-1977.

14. Now, so far as the alternative submission made on behalf ofthe claimants in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 to determine thecompensation on the basis of the judgment of the High Court in the caseof Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) where the acquisitionproceedings commenced in the year 1983 and the compensation wasdetermined @ Rs.297/- per square yard is concerned, the aforesaidcannot be accepted. The appellants are claiming that in the case of theappellants, the land was acquired in the year 1976 and in the case of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AKhazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) the land was acquired inthe year 1983, by adopting a formula of deducting 10% depreciationeach year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, thecompensation may be determined, the aforesaid cannot be accepted.

As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determinedBfor the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable atall. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot besaid to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on recordthat in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, therewas no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 thedevelopment had taken place and even the development plan has beenCsanctioned 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, theappeals are partly allowed. It is held that the original landowners –claimants – appellants herein are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.28.12Dpaisa per square yard with respect to the lands acquired in the year1976. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court aremodified to the above extent. It goes without saying that the claimantsshall be entitled to the statutory benefits as may be available under theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced amount ofEcompensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.

All the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, however,there shall be no order as to costs.

F

Ankit Gyan

Appeals partly allowed.

G

H