19 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. Vs SHAKTI BHATTA UDYOG .

Case number: C.A. No.-006331-006331 / 2000
Diary number: 15551 / 2000
Advocates: SHRISH KUMAR MISRA Vs PRAVEEN JAIN


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6331 of 2000

PETITIONER: U.P.S.I.D.C.

RESPONDENT: Shakti Bhatta Udyog & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/08/2004

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

WITH

[C.A. Nos. 6322/2000, 6323/2000, 6324/2000,  6325/2000, 6326/2000, 6327/2000/, 6328/2000,  6329/2000, 6330/2000, 7121/2000, 3959-3960/1998  & 1122/2001]

Shivaraj V. Patil J.

       These appeals are by the U.P. State Industrial Development  Corporation (UPSIDC) questioning the validity and correctness of  the impugned judgments of the High Court enhancing the amount of  compensation and fixing the market value of the lands acquired at  the rate of Rs.8/- or Rs.9/- per square yard, as the case may be.   Large extent of land was notified for acquisition for UPSIDC for  planned development of industries.  In that regard notification  under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short  ’the Act’) was published on 25.4.1972.  The Special Land  Acquisition Officer passed award on 30.11.1976 fixing the market  value of the lands at the rate of Rs.2/- per square yard.  Some  land owners, not being satisfied with the market value so fixed,  made applications to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act  for making reference.  The reference court, by its judgment dated  2.9.1980, rejected six references Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 12 of  1977, upholding the market value of the lands fixed by the Land  Acquisition Officer finding that there was no evidence to enhance  the market value.  The reference court in reference Nos. 7, 9, 45  and 100 of 1977 enhanced the market value of lands to Rs.8/- per  square yard by its common judgment dated 18.12.1981.  Reference  court in reference Nos. 21, 25, 32 and 42 of 1977 rejected the  references affirming the market value of the lands awarded by the  Land Acquisition Officer.  The High Court in First Appeal No. 808  of 1984, filed against the order made by the reference court in  L.A.R. No. 32 of 1977, and in First Appeal No. 537 of 1980,  arising out of the order passed in L.A.R. No. 21 of 1977,  enhanced the market value of lands to Rs.9/- per square yard and  in First Appeal No. 536 of 1980 and 548 of 1994 arising out of  L.A.R Nos. 25 and 42 of 1977 enhanced the compensation to Rs.8/-  per square yard.  Hence these appeals as already stated above.         The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the High  Court was not right and justified in enhancing the market value  of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.8/- or Rs.9/- per square  yard, as the case may be, as against the rate of Rs.2/- per  square yard fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; 4(1)  notification was issued on 25.4.1972 for acquiring the lands in

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

question and the Land Acquisition Officer was right in relying  upon the relevant material, evidence contained in sale deed dated  28.5.1971 executed few months prior to issuance of 4(1)  notification, that too executed by two of the claimants.   According to the learned counsel on the basis of this sale deed  the Land Acquisition Officer rightly fixed the market value of  the lands in question at the rate of Rs.2/- per square yard; the  High Court failed to notice that the lands in question were  agricultural lands and in some of the lands there were deep pits;  they could not have been valued on the basis of the developed  lands for the purpose of industrial sites.  The learned counsel  also urged that the High Court relied on the judgment passed in  First Appeal No. 808 of 1984.  This judgment was followed in  First Appeal Nos. 536-537 of 1980 in respect of some of the lands  acquired under the very same 4(1) notification.  But the  correctness and validity of the judgment in First Appeal No. 808  of 1984 is itself under challenge in one of these appeals;  although special leave petition filed against this judgment was  rejected, later it was reviewed, leave was granted and the  special leave petition is now registered as Civil Appeal No. 7121  of 2000.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents  argued in support of the impugned judgments.  They urged that  Special Land Acquisition Officer committed an error in taking the  lands as agricultural lands in fixing the market value even after  noticing their potentialities.         The High Court in the common impugned judgment dated  10.12.1999 in First Appeal No. 225 of 1982 and connected appeals  pointed out to the following observations of the Land Acquisition  Officer, made in the "Award" dated 13.11.1976: - "The area under acquisition is on Howrah-Delhi  main double line of the Northern Railway and  some of the industries had already been  established in its surroundings.  This area is  adjoining to the industrial areas of Ghaziabad  and this area is being acquired for  establishing more industrial units.  In these  circumstances, the disputed land has building  potentiality and it is appropriate to award the  market value on the special rate of per sq.  area." As to the sale deed dated 28.5.1971, referred to above in First  Appeal No. 808 of 1984, infirmities were pointed out and reasons  were recorded for rejecting it observing thus: - "In the cross-examination, PW-1 Sri Rajendra  Kumar, stated to have seen the land covered by  the sale deed (Ex.A-1) filed by the State and  he denied that such land was leveled and he  stated that it entertained 10ft. deep pits.   He, further denied the land covered by Ex.A-1  was very near to the land in question.  On the  contrary, it was stated to be at a distance.   In the evidence adduced on behalf of the  opposite parties, there is no whisper or  assertion that the land covered by Ex.A-1 was  leveled or was close to the appellant’s land.   In such circumstances, reliance upon the sale  deed dated May 28, 1971, in respect of land,  which was away from the land in question and  which had pits of 10 ft. deep, cannot be  upheld.         In this regard, one more patent error,  committed by the reference court, is apparent.   The reference court observed that "this is  noteworthy that there is no highway near this

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

land.  During the course of arguments, the  counsel for the opposite party has, however,  admitted that a bye pass was not in existence,  when Section 4(1) was made, so the question  that the value increased because of existence  of this road in the year 1972, does not arise."   Curiously enough, to draw the inference about  the non-existence of the bye pass road, the  reference court relied upon the argument of the  counsel for the opposite parties, instead of  the statement on oath of the PW-1, Sri Rajendra  Kumar, who categorically stated that the  disputed land abutted the Ghaziabad bye pass  road.  In cross-examination also, he reiterated  this fact.  To ignore the statement on oath and  to rely on an argument, that too of the counsel  for the opposite parties, cannot be said as  legal.  The abuttance of the land in question  to the Ghaziabad bye pass road on the basis of  evidence on record, is evident." It was further observed: -         "The reference court clearly erred in  relying upon Ex.A-1 without considering the  fact that it had 10 ft. deep pits; it was at a  distance from the land in question and also it  did not abut to the bye pass road, while the  land in question abutted to the Ghaziabad bye  pass road, surrounded by abadies and without  pits.  In view of proved superiority of the  land in question, both in location and quality,  it deserved a much higher rate, than Rs.2/- per  sq. yard at which the land covered by Ex.A-1  was transacted." The High Court, after re-appreciation of the entire material  placed on record in the above said First Appeal No. 808 of 1984,  concluded thus: -         "Keeping in view of the entirety of facts,  circumstances and the attending features, I am  satisfied that it would be just, proper and  befitting, if the market value of the land in  question is assessed at the rate of Rs.9/- per  sq. yard."         Having regard to the facts found and reasons recorded by  the High Court in First Appeal No. 808 of 1984 it cannot be said  that the market value of the lands fixed by the High Court at the  rate of Rs.9/- per square yard in the impugned judgment is either  unreasonable or arbitrary.  No fault can be found with in fixing  the market value at the rate of Rs.8/- per square yard by the  High Court in First Appeal Nos. 548 of 1994 and 536 of 1980  having regard to the location and other factors as stated in the  judgment of the High Court.         Thus, having regard to all aspects of the matter and  keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the reasons  recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgments, we do not  find any merit in these appeals.  Consequently these appeals  stand dismissed, but with no order as to costs.