Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


State Of U.P. v. Richchha Pal - FIRST APPEAL No. - 229 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 15582 (14 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 1

First Appeal No. 229 of 1985

State of U.P. Appellant


Richchha Pal


Hon. Pankaj Mithal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Standing counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent.

This land acquisition appeal is directed against the judgment, order and award of the reference court dated 11.5.1984 in LAR No. 15 of 1983 Richchha Pal Vs. state of U.P. The reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 11,111.11 paise per bigha to Rs. 22,128/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits.

The State of U.P., for constructing the Lakhoti branch Canal acquired land in village Dhakoli, Pargana-Siana, District Bulandshahr vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 4.4.1981 which was published in the gazette dated 26.9.1981. The Land acquisition Officer gave an award on 27.1.1983 offering compensation @ Rs. 11,111.11 paise per bigha along with solatium @ 15% per annum. The claimant-respondent was not satisfied by the compensation so offered by the SLAO and therefore he preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court by the impugned judgment and order awarded compensation of Rs. 22,128/- per bigha along with 15% solatium and interest @ 6% from the date of possession. The appellant being aggrieved by the enhancement made by the reference has preferred this appeal.

Sri R.C. Srivastava learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the enhancement made by the reference court is highly excessive.

A perusal of the record reveals that the claimant respondent had claimed compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- per bigha. PW-1 Ziley Singh had stated that the acquired land was situate hardly at the distance of 100 meter from the abadi of the village. Land of adjoining village Bhaisakhur was also acquired and in respect of the land of the said village Bhaisakhur compensation @ Rs. 23,000/- was awarded. PW-2 Latoor Singh stated that the market value of the acquired land was less than Rs. 30,000/- per bigha. Sri Mahaveer Singh, the Amin of the Land Acquisition Officer who had appeared as defence witness DW-1 admitted the above market rate and, the compensation awarded for the land of village Bhaisakhur. He had further stated that the land of village was being sold ranging from 16,000/- to 30,000/- per bigha.The above oral evidence is supported by a sale deed dated 15.6.1981 under which land having an area of 2 Bigha, 10 Biswa. 44 Biswansi and a Kachwansi of village Dhakoli itself was transferred @ Rs. 55,333/-.According to the said sale deed the market value of the land comes to Rs. 22,128/- per bigha. The said exemplar sale deed has been executed very close in time with the date of acquisition. The bonafidies of the said sale deed are not disputed. Thus, the above sale deed appears to be the best exemplar available. Apart from the above sale deed, the claimant respondent has filed certified copy of the award dated 18.5.1983 under which the land of village Bhaisakhur was acquired @ Rs. 23,270/- per bigha. The oral evidence and the map on record proves that both villages Dhakoli and Bhaisakhur are adjoining to one another having land of same potentiality. Therefore, the claimant respondent has discharged his burden to prove the market value of the acquired land and that the compensation offered by the SLAO was on the lower side. The reference court has assigned proper and valid reasons for ignoring the exemplar sale deed produced by the appellant as it was in respect of a very small piece of land measuring about 9 Biswansi and was a transfer of land between the two neighbours.

Thus in view of the totality of the circumstances, In do not find any error in the conclusion of the reference court that the claimant respondent is entitle to compensation @ Rs. 22,128/-.

In view of the above I do not find that the reference court has awarded excessive compensation. The compensation has rightly been awarded on the basis of the evidence on record and as such it is perfectly justified. The appeal as such has no merit and is dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.