ANIL KUMAR SOTIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP)

434                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 434              [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                            ANIL KUMAR SOTI
                                       v.
                  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH
                       COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP)
B                       (Civil Appeal No. 6919 of 2021)
                             NOVEMBER 23, 2021
                [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
              Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 4 – Land acquisition – Market
      value/Compensation – Determination of – Held: While determining
C
      the market value/compensation, previous instances of acquisition
      in proximity for location and potential of land acquisition along
      with cumulative increase is relevant consideration – On facts, in
      respect of land acquired by notification 16.05.1981, claimant
      justified in seeking compensation of Rs.15,402/- per acre – Reliance
D     placed upon the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
      awarding compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre, in another case
      with respect to the acquisition of the land of the very same village,
      by notification dated 19.12.1981, considering the sale deed
      exemplar dated 23.12.1980 – Time gap between two notifications
      u/s. 4 only seven months and there were no material changes during
E
      the said period – Furthermore, judgment and award passed by the
      Reference Court in that case determining the compensation at
      Rs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State has
      accepted the same, thus, the appellants entitled to compensation at
      Rs.15,402/- per acre.
F
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: In the instant case, notification under Section 4 of
      the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued on 16.05.1981
      by which the High Court has determined the compensation at
      Rs.7,100/- per acre. However, with respect to the land acquired
G     of the very same village for which the notification under Section
      4 of the Act was issued on 19.12.1981, the Reference Court in
      another case determined and awarded the compensation at
      Rs.15,402/- per acre. Having gone through the judgment and
      award passed by the Reference Court in another case determining
H     the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre, the Reference Court
                                     434
        ANIL KUMAR SOTI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                              435
             THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP)

had considered the sale deed exemplar of the year 1978.                        A
Therefore, it is not the case that in another case the sale deed
exemplar relied upon was for the period between 16.05.1981
(acquisition of the land in the instant case) and 19.12.1981 (date
of acquisition in another case). As per the settled preposition of
law while determining the market value/compensation, previous
                                                                               B
instances of acquisition in proximity for location and potential of
land acquisition along with cumulative increase is relevant
consideration. In the instant case, time gap between two
notifications under Section 4 of the Act is only seven months.
Nothing has been pointed out with respect to any material changes
for the period between 16.05.1981 and 16.12.1981, time gap                     C
between the two notifications under Section 4 of the Act. The
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in that case
determining the market value/compensation at Rs.15,402/- per
acre has attained the finality and the State has accepted the same
by withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award.
                                                                               D
Therefore, in the instant circumstances, the appellants would be
entitled to the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre with all other
statutory benefits. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is hereby modified. [Para 7, 8][437-D-H; 438-A-
D]
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6919 of                  E
2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal No.440 of 1989.
        Piyush Sharma, Adv. for the Appellants.                                F
     Sakha Ram Singh, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan
Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        M. R. SHAH, J.
                                                                               G
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in First Appeal No. 440 of 1989, by which the High Court has
partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein – original
claimants and has determined the market value of the lands acquired at
                                                                               H
436            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     Rs.7,100/- per acre only, original land owners have preferred the present
      appeal.
             2. That the appellants’ lands situated at village Rawali came to be
      acquired for public purpose. A notification under Section 4 of the Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on
B     16.05.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award and
      determined the compensation at Rs.5,218.39/- per acre. At the instances
      of the claimants a Reference was made to the District Court under
      Section 18 of the ACT claiming compensation of Rs.12,000/- per acre.
      The Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,218.39/-
      per acre to Rs.6,696.70/- per acre with all other statutory benefits which
C     may be available under the Act. The appellants herein preferred the
      appeal before the High Court. The claimants prayed the compensation
      of Rs.15,402/- per acre relying upon the judgment and award passed by
      the Reference Court in another case with respect to the acquisition of
      the land of the very village, but with respect to the notification issued
D     under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.12.1981. That by the impugned
      judgment and order and relying upon and considering the sale deed
      exemplar dated 23.12.1980, the High Court has partly allowed the said
      appeal and has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of
      Rs.7,100/- per acre.
E           3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court, enhancing the amount of
      compensation to Rs.7,100/- per acre only the original claimants have
      preferred the present appeal.
             4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original
F     claimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially
      erred in determining and awarding the compensation of Rs.7,100/- per
      acre only.
            4.1 It is submitted that for the acquisition of the land of the very
      village but notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
G     19.12.1981 the Reference Court determined and awarded the
      compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre. It is submitted that the Reference
      Court in that case relied upon the sale deed exemplar of the year 1978
      and thereafter determined the market value of the compensation at Rs.
      15,402/- per acre. It is submitted that the appeal against the judgment
      and award passed by the Reference Court in that case determining and
H
     ANIL KUMAR SOTI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                 437
   THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP) [M. R. SHAH, J.]

awarding the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre has been subsequently        A
withdrawn. It is submitted that therefore the Government has accepted
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court with respect to
the land acquired of the same village but for which the notification under
Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.12.1981. It is submitted that
therefore the appellants are also entitled to the compensation of
                                                                               B
Rs.15,402/- per acre.
       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State
has submitted that in the present case the High Court has rightly
determined the compensation at Rs.7,100/- per acre considering the sale
deed exemplar dated 23.12.1980 which as such can be said to be
proximate/nearer to the date of the acquisition of the land. It is submitted   C
that therefore the interference of this court in exercise of power under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not called for.
       6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties at length.
                                                                               D
       7. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute
that in the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act has been
issued on 16.05.1981 by which the High Court has determined the
compensation at Rs.7,100/- per acre. However, it is required to be noted
that with respect to the land acquired of the very same village for which
the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.12.1981, the      E
Reference Court in another case determined and awarded the
compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre. Having gone through the judgment
and award passed by the Reference Court in another case determining
the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre (which is heavily relied upon
by the claimants in the present case) the Reference Court had considered       F
the sale deed exemplar of the year 1978. Therefore, it is not the case
that in another case the sale deed exemplar relied upon was for the
period between 16.05.1981 (acquisition of the land in the present case)
and 19.12.1981 (date of acquisition in another case). As per the settled
preposition of law while determining the market value/compensation,
previous instances of acquisition in proximity for location and potential      G
of land acquisition along with cumulative increase is relevant
consideration. In the present case, time gap between two notifications
under Section 4 of the Act is only seven months. Nothing has been
pointed out with respect to any material changes for the period between
16.05.1981 and 16.12.1981 - time gap between the two notifications             H
438                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     under Section 4 of the Act. On the contrary, after the judgment and
      award passed by the Reference Court with respect to the land acquired
      of the same village for which notification under Section 4 was issued on
      19.12.1981, the Reference Court determined the compensation at
      Rs.15,402/- per acre. The Reference Court in that case relied upon the
      sale deed exemplar of 1978. The judgment and award passed by the
B
      Reference Court in that case determining the market value/compensation
      at Rs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State has accepted
      the same by withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award.
      Therefore, in the present circumstances, the appellants shall be entitled
      to the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre.
C            8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court is hereby modified and it is held that appellants shall be
      entitled to the compensation for land acquired at Rs.15,402/- per acre
      with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act
D     subject to payment of deficient Court fees, if any. The present appeal is
      allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case there
      shall be no order as to costs.


      Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal allowed.
E




F




G




H