LexAJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 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 carried out to acquire lands – In one proceeding notification u/s.4 was issued on 30.04.1976 – The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award for compensation @Rs.2.38 per square yard – However, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.4.628 per square yard – Aggrieved, the land owners filed appeals before the High Court, which were dismissed – In another proceeding, notification u/s.4 was issued on 16.09.1976 – The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.6 per square yard – The High Court dismissed the appeal for enhanced compensation and confirmed the judgment passed by the Reference Court – Both the appeals are before the Supreme Court – Appellants from both sides pleaded to enhance the compensation to Rs. 297/- per square yard by relying on the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Mangu and Ors. v. State of U.P. – Held: The case of Mangu and Ors., notification u/s. 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1991, but in the present case the notification u/s. 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1976 – The said judgment and order passed by the High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. cannot be said to be comparable because of the time gap of approximately 15 years between the dates of acquisition – The claimants in the present case cannot claim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relying upon the decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. with regard to the acquisition 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 the Supreme Court – Therefore, as such at the 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 the year 1976-1977. [2021] 7 S.C.R. 671 671 A B C D E F G H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. Partly allowing the Appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Having perused the decision of the High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors., which has been heavily relied upon by the claimants- landowners, it emerges that as such in the case of Mangu and Ors., notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1991, but in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 01.06.1976. Even the possession of the land in the case of Mangu and Ors. was taken over in 1992 and in the present case the possession of the land had been taken over in 1976. In the present case, the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25.02.1978 whereas in the case of Mangu and Ors., the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20.09.1993 and, therefore, the said judgment and order passed by the High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. cannot be said to be comparable at all because of the time gap of approximately 15 years between the dates of acquisition. Furthermore, the High Court decided the batch of First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. along with the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987. Nobody specifically pointed out that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 were with regard to the acquisition of 1977. Therefore, without noticing the aforesaid reference mechanically First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with regard to the acquisition of year 1977 came to be disposed of along with First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 and mechanically the compensation with regard to the acquisition of 1977 came to be enhanced to Rs.297/- per square yard. That as such it was a mistake on the part of the High Court in not noticing the difference with regard to the acquisition of the years 1977 and 1991. Nobody can be permitted to take the benefit of the mistake either of the Court or of any party. [Para 13][681-B-F; 682-D] 3. Assuming for the time being that as the review applications are pending, this Court may not take note of the subsequent events of filing the review applications, which are yet to be decided by the High Court, in that case also and for the reasons stated above and considering the obvious mistake A B C D E F G H 6
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.