Ajay Pal Singh & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

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 ANR.

referred to herein above, 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. [Para 13.1][682-F-G]

4. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the claimants have also heavily relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. in First Appeal No.

458 of 1984 determining the compensation @ Rs. 297/- per square yard with respect to the lands acquired by notification dated 16.09.1976. However, it is required to be noted that the judgment and order dated 11.03.2015 passed in First Appeal No.458 of 1984 in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. came to be subsequently reviewed by the High Court allowing the Civil Misc. Review Application No.174702 of 2015 in which the High Court subsequently noted and determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard. It is reiterated that decision in I.A. No. 116578 of 2021 reducing the compensation to Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard for the lands acquired in the year 1976 has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2016. [Para 13.2][682-G-H; 683-A-B; 683-D]

5. Even in one case, i.e., in the case of Jagdish Chand Vs. State of U.P. where the High Court determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the special leave petition has been dismissed as withdrawn by this 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. [Para 13.3][683-E-F]

6. The appellants are claiming that in the case of the appellants, the land was acquired in the year 1976 and in the case of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. the land was acquired in the year 1983, by adopting a formula of deducting 10% depreciation each year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, the compensation may be determined, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at all. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be said to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on record that in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, there was no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the development had taken place and even the development plan has been sanctioned at the time when the land was acquired in the year 1983, therefore, the aforesaid request cannot be accepted. [Para 14][683-H; 684A-C] Mangu and ors. v. State of U.P. Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 decided by the High Court; Khazan and Ors. v. State of U.P. (First Appeal No. 564 of 1997 decided by the High Court); Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR 512 – referred to.

Jagmal v. State of U.P. ( First Appeal No. 458 of 1984 decided by the High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court by order dated 30.09.2016) – relied on.