LexGAFAR AND ORS. versus MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
GAF AR AND ORS.
v.
MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
AUGUST 17, 2007
[P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 18-land Acquisition-
1n villages Harthala, Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur-Compensation-Award
C of-Enhancement by Reference Court-Set aside by High Court and restoration
of award by land Acquisition Officer-Interference with-Held: lnt{!rjerence
not called for since claimant did not establish their case for enhancement of
compensation-There was absence of evidence to justify the claim-Reference
Court failed to give any adequate or tenable reasons for enhancement-LAO
assessed compensation on basis of evidence of comparable sale of lands in
D the locality, thus, was generous in. his award.
In terms of Land Acquisition Notifications, most of the lands in village
Harthala, Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur were acquired at the instance of the
Development Authority. Land owners were awarded compensation. In respect
of lands in village Harthala, Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation
E at Rs. 80 per square meter. Reference Court enhanced the co~pens&tion to
Rs. 270 per square meter. In respect ofVillage Mukkarrabpur, LAO awarded
Rs. 17.05, Rs. 117/-, Rs. 170/- and Rs. 92.59 per square meter and Reference
Court enhanced the same to Rs.192/-, Rs.350/- and Rs .. 350 per square meter.
In respect of village Sonakpur, LAO awarded Rs. 11.59 and Rs. 22 per square
F meter and the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 290 and in the range of
:;.
Rs. 350 to Rs. 390 per square meter respectively. However, High Court set
aside the awards of Reference Court and resto~ed the awards made by Land
Acquisition Offi~er. Hence the present appeals.
Appellant-land owners with regard to lands in Harthala village,
G contended that the High Court misdirected itself into thinking t~at sale
instances of small plots had no evidentiary value or were not relevant in
determining the compensation due for larger extents o'r lands; that the
Awarding Officer ignored the transactions involving sales of land in acres or
of larger extents, without giving adequate reasons except vaguely stating that
H
32
GAFAR v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
33
they were distantly located; ihat those sale instances would have provided a A
basis for assessing the compensation due in respect of the acquired lands
subject to adjustments for the distance or other disadvantages or advantages
compared to the acquired lands; that the sale deed relied on by Awarding
Officer was in respect of sale of a portion of his property by a seller which
had an extent of only 100 square meters and the price fetched was only Rs. B
80 per square meter; that the evidence of P.W.1 showed that the lands involved
were agricultural lands and did not have any electricity or other facilities
available; and that some of the sale instances indicate that the prices were
only in the range of Rs. 11 per square meter up to Rs. 27 per square meter.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts
awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they
are entitled to more. That burden nad to be discharged by the claimants and
only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to
the State to justify the award. The Reference Court could not give any adequate
or tenable reasons for adopting the value it did. No evidence was dearly or
properly discussed to justify a finding that the claimants had made out a case
for enhancement of compensation. High Court held that it appears that on the
materials available, even the amount awarded by the A warding Officer was on
c
D
the high side since he adopted the sale instance of a small extent of land and E
applied it to the larger extents that had been acquired under these notifications
even without any deduction. The submission that it is not as if sale instances
of small extents had to be completely ignored, does not lead the claimants far.
In any event, it cannot be held that the High Court was in error in not relying
on sale instances of small extents in assessing the compensation payable.
(Paras 8 and 9) (40-E, F, G, DJ
1.2. The sale instances referred to by Reference Court are all instances
of sale of developed lands and the further discussion is about the use to which
the authority intended to put the land that was being acquired, which obviouslExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.