High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State Of U.P. v. Amara Singh & Another - FIRST APPEAL No. - 213 of 1990  RD-AH 16055 (26 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 1
First Appeal No. 213 of 1990
Amar Singh Respondent
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J
The land of the claimant-respondent Khasra plot Nos. 289; 18 Bigha, 3 Biswa, 0 Biswansi, 296; 1 Biswa, 299; 2 Biswa, 300; 3 biswa situate in village Khera Sattu, Pargana & Tahsil- Khair, District Aligarh was acquired for the construction of feeder branch under the Madhya Ganga Canal Pariyojana vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 28.8.1982 and award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 20.8.1983 whereupon a reference under Section 18 of the Act was preferred. The reference court vide judgment and order dated 16.11.1989 refused to increase the compensation as awarded by the SLAO (Irrigation) but awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as additional compensation due to division of one of the plots.
It is against the aforesaid judgment and order of the reference court dated 16.11.1989 that this appeal under Section 54 of the land acquisition Act has been preferred by the State of U.P., through Collector, Aligarh and the SLAO (Irrigation).
Heard Sri Shrish Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The only point raised in the appeal is that the reference court while deciding the issue No. 3 had excessively awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of damages on account of bifurcation of the land of one of the plots of the claimant respondent. It is not disputed that out of the total area of 26 bigha, 15 biswa, 2 biswansi of Khasra plot No. 289 an area of 18 bigha, 3 biswa, 0 biswansi of the claimant respondent was acquired leaving the remaining part with the claimant respondent. On account of the part acquisition of the above plot and construction of feeder branch of the canal the remaining land of the claimant respondent stood divided in two parts and severed from one another. One part of the land went on one side of the canal and the other part of the land on either side of the canal. The claimant respondent as such has to travel about 5 to 6 Kms.,from one part of the field for crossing the canal and to reach his other part of the field. From the above admitted position it is apparent that the claimant respondent has been put to a great loss in the cultivation of his land. The above facts speak for themselves and as such he is entitle to be adequately compensated for the above loss. Section 23 (1) of the Act also provides for determination and award of compensation for the damage if any sustained by, reason of acquisition injuriously affecting the other property of the claimant in any manner. Accordingly the reference court committed no error of law in awarding compensation for the loss suffered by the claimant respondent due to division and severance of his holding into two parts and the said parts being located on either side of the canal. Nothing has been shown to prove that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- so awarded is excessive.
Thus in the totality of circumstances the reference court had not committed any error in awarding awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
The appeal as such lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.