1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.9596 OF 2003

 U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD                  .......APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL & ORS.                     ......RESPONDENTS  

J U D G E M E N T

This appeal is directed against order dated 18.5.2001 of  

the  Division  Bench  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  whereby  it  

disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 with a  

direction  to  the  Housing  Commissioner  to  provide  funds  for  

payment  of  additional  compensation  to  the  respondent  with  a  

further  direction  to  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  to  pass

2 appropriate order on the application filed by respondent No.1  

for payment of such compensation.

By notification dated 20.12.1969 issued under Section 29  

of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Avam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965  

(for short, 'the 1965 Act'), the Government of U.P. proposed  

acquisition of a huge chunk of land for Ghazipur-Bastauli Bhumi  

Vikas Avam Griahsthan Yojna, Lucknow. Final declaration under  

Section  32  of  the  1965  Act  was  published  on  9.7.1972  and  

possession of the land was taken some time in March, July and  

September, 1973.

By an award dated 22.3.1975, the Special Land Acquisition  

Officer applied belting system for payment of compensation and  

fixed market value of the acquired land falling in first belt at  

Rs.1.03 per sq.ft. For the land falling in the second and the  

third belt, market value was fixed at 66 paisa per sq.ft. and 33  

paisa per sq.ft. respectively. He also awarded Rs.24,687.20 for

3 the  trees  and  existing  constructions.   The  Nagar  Mahapalika  

Tribunal, Lucknow to whom the matter was referred under Section  

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act')  

passed  an  award  dated  16.3.1984  whereby  market  value  of  the  

acquired land was substantially enhanced.

After  amendment  of  the  Act  in  1984,  the  respondent  

submitted application dated 21.11.1984 before the Special Land  

Acquisition Officer for payment of additional compensation in  

terms of Section 23(1-A).  He repeated this request by filing  

another application on 26.6.1991.  For the next about 20 years,  

the  Housing  Commissioner  of  the  appellant,  the  Special  Land  

Acquisition  Officer  and  Additional  District  Magistrate  (Land  

Acquisition) exchanged correspondence on the issue of payment of  

additional compensation to the respondent, which was calculated  

as Rs.65,56,065/-.  However, as the amount was not paid to the  

respondent, he filed Writ Petition No.8(L/A) of 2001.  The High

4 Court took cognizance of the correspondence exchanged between  

the functionaries of the State and the Housing Commissioner of  

the appellant and disposed of the writ petition by a rather  

cryptic order, the last paragraph of which reads as under:

“As  the  question  involved  in  the  present  Writ  Petition is too trivial to drag on unnecessarily,  hence  we  dispose  of  this  writ  petition  with  a  direction  to  the  Housing  Commissioner  to  provide  necessary  funds  as  asked  for  by  the  Additional  District  Magistrate  [Land  Acquisition],  within  a  period of six weeks.  The Land Acquisition Officer  thereafter  will  pass  appropriate  orders  on  the  

application  of  the  petitioner  for  payment  of  the  compensation and if the same is due, will pay the  same to the petitioner in accordance with law.”

When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 14.9.2010, it  

was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Court  that  additional  

compensation has already been paid to other land owners under  

Section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act.  Thereupon, the Secretary of  

the  appellant  was  directed  to  appear  in-person  along  with  

records relating to payment of additional compensation.

5 In  compliance  of  the  aforesaid  order,  Mr.  Mishri  Lal  

Paswan, Secretary, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, has appeared  

in  person.  We  asked  him  to  clarify  as  to  why  additional  

compensation has been paid to other land owners without going  

into  the  issue  of  their  entitlement  to  receive  such  

compensation,  but  he  could  not  give  satisfactory  reply,  a  

phenomenon  which  is  not  unusual  in  the  functioning  of  the  

bureaucracy of the country.

We have heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  Pallav  Sishodia,  learned  

senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and are convinced  

that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside because  

the High Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding  

the  entitlement  of  respondent  No.1  to  get  additional  

compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Act as amended  

in 1984.

6 The appeal is accordingly allowed.  The impugned order is  

set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh  

disposal of the writ petition filed by the respondent.  The  

parties may file supplementary affidavits within four weeks from  

today.  They shall be free to raise all points/issues before the  

High Court.

Since the acquisition is of the year 1969, we request the  

High Court to decide the writ petition within a period of six  

months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this  

order.

               ...........................J.          ( G.S.SINGHVI )  

 ..........................J.

7         ( DR.B.S.CHAUHAN )

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 21, 2010.

8