U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
ALIGARH
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
MARCH 27, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 18 and 23.
A
B
Land acquisition-Compensation award by Collector--Enhancement C
C'f compensation by Reference Cowt-Appeal dismissed by High Co wt on the
ground of limitation-Appeal before Supreme Court-field two sale deeds
had been filed in support of the claim higher compensation but neither the
vendor nor the vendee has been examined to substantiate those documents
which is not the evidence legally admissible nor to be considered-17ie
approach adopted by the High Cowt as well as the reference Cowt is not D
con-ect i11 law-171e award a11d decree of the reference Court and that of the
Divisio11 Bench of the High Cowt is set aside-Matter remitted to High Court
for fresh disposal i11 accordance with law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4980-86 E
of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.94 of the Allahabad High
Court in F.A. No. 271, 270, 273, 274, 268, 272 and 269 of 1994.
Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.
S.K. Verma, Chandra Sekhar, J.M. Khan and M.A. Khan for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
G
These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on October 17, 1994 in F.A.
No. 271/1994 and batch.
The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, the "Act") was published on June 3, 1979 acquiring a total H
389
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1997) 3 S.C.R.
A extent of 24.9 acres of land for public purpose, namely, for establishment
of road transport depot. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compen-
sation at the rate of Rs. 11.25 per sq. yard. On reference under Section 18
of Act, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 25 per sq. yard. On appeal, the Division Bench of
B the High Court has dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation.
Thus, these appeals.
On our direction the learned counsel for the parties have placed on
record the adduced evidence. It is now admitted position that two sale
deeds has been filed in support of the claim of higher compensation but
C neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined to substantiate those
documents which is not the evidence legally admissible nor to be con-
sidered. The reference Court also did not properly consider the claims in
the legal perspective. Thus, we find that the approach adopted by the High
Court as well as the reference Court is not correct in law. However, we are
not expressing any opinion on merits. We set aside the award and decree
D of the reference Court and that of the Division Bench of the High Court.
E
The matter is remitted to the reference Court with a direction to give
opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh, consider the Sf1111e in
the light of the law laid down by this Court and then decide the,compen-
sation accordingly within six months from the receipt of this, nrder.
/
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed but, in the circumstances
without costs.
T.N.A.
Appeals allowed.
-1
'
Lex