TEJUMAL BHOJWANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 26-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TEJUMAL BHOJWANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
AUGUST 26,2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ, AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
land Acquisition: 
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, I 965: ss.28 and 32-
C Acquisition of large tract of land alongwith structures· and tubewe/1-
Compensation-Solatium-Interest-Additional compensation-'-Deduction 
towards development of land-land Acquisition Officer offering compensation 
at the rate of Rs. 2 and Rs. 3 per sq. ft. -Separate compensation for structure 
and Tubewell-Civil Court enhancing compensation to Rs. I 2 and Rs. 15 per 
D sq. ft.-Also enhancing compensation for structure and Tubewell-High Court 
modifying compensation to Rs. I 0 per sq. ft.-Dec/ined separate compensation 
for structure and Tubewe/1-0rdered deduction @ I 0% towards development 
of /and-Held, claimants are entitled. to 30% so/atium, as also interest and 
additional compensation as the proceedings were pending in the year 1984-
Separate compensation for structure and Tubewell wolf Id. be given as there 
E was no capitalization of value of land and structure-It would be appropriate 
to deduct development charges @25'Yo-land Acquisition Act, 1894-ss.4,6, /8 
and 23(/-A). 
Savitri Cairae v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr., 120031 6 
F sec 255, relied on. 
Ratan Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. State of U.P., 119971 2 SCC 161 
distinguished. 
Shim/a Development Authority and Ors. v. Smt. Santosh Sharma and 
G Anr., AIR (1997) SC 1791, referred to. 
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishadv. Jainul Islam and Anr., (199812 SCC, 
467 cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6365-6382. 
fl 
1044 
TEJUMAL BHOJW ANI v. · ST A TE 
1045 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.97 of the Allahabad High 
Court in F.A. Nos. 134, 129, 130, 131, 135, 136/87, 97/89, 199/90, 20/91 97/ 
90, 14/94, 200, 178, 91, 205, 64, and 184 of 1990. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6383-6398 of 1999. 
S. Ganesh, R.K. Jain, Manoj Malhotra, Ganesh Bhojwani, Sanjiv Sen, 
A 
B 
S. Sukumaran for C.N. Sree Kumar, P.K. Jain, Shirish Kumar Misra, A.K. 
Srivastava, Mis. J.B.D. & Co., and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appearing C 
parites. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
The appellants herein (in C.A. Nos. 6365-6382of1999) were the owners 
of large tract of land situate in village Chhauni Gora Barik and/or Chhauni D 
Qadim, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur in the State of Uttar 
Pradesh. The respondent herein (in C.A. Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999) is the 
State of U.P., through the Collector, [Land Acquisition Officer, Avas Evam 
Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as "the Parishad')], established and 
constituted under the provisions of U .P. A vas Evam Vikas Parish ad Adhiniyam, 
1965 (for short 'the Adhiniyam'). Under the Adhiniyam, the Parishad is E 
entrusted with certain functions and duties for preparing and executing housing 
schemes. For the aforesaid purpose in mind, the Parishad issued a notification 
dated !st of November, 1974 under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, which is 
equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By the aforesaid 
Notification a large tract of land was sought to be acquired pursuant to a F 
Housing Scheme for construction of houses for the public. The said notification 
was followed by a Notification dated 11th November, 1978, under Section 32 
of the Adhiniyam, which is equivalent to Section 6 of the Notification. 
The Land Acquisition Officer gave three different Awards on three 
different dates. In the case of appellants herein, the Land Acquisition Officer G 
offered compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 2 per square foot in first 
two Awards and Rs. 3 per square foot in the last Award. It is pertinent to 
mention here that the Land Acquisition Officer offered separate compensation 
for the structure standing on the land as well as to the existing Tube Well. 
The claimants were not satisfied by the compensation and, therefore, they 
sought compensation. before the Civil Court. The Civil Court enhanced the H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A compensation to Rs. 7.75, Rs. 12 and Rs. 15 per square foot respectively and 
also enhanced the compensation awarded for the Tube Well as well as the 
structure standing on the land. Aggrieved, the parties preferred appeals and 
cross appeals before the High Court. 
The High Court after considering the matters, modified the judgment of 
B the Reference Court awarding compensation @ Rs. I 0 per square foot. 
Howeve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.