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. Smt. S. Begum - FIRST APPEAL No. 817 of 1991 [2007] RD-AH 7969 (27 April 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.20

First Appeal No.817 of 1991

State of U.P. and another.....Appellants


Smt. Sardar Begam.......Respondent

First Appeal No.818 of 1991

State of U.P. and another.....Appellants


Sukhbir Singh &  Others........Respondents

First Appeal No.819 of 1991

State of U.P. and another.....Appellants


Margoob Ahmad &  Another.......Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.

Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M. M. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, Sri R. C. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Ajai Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents.

Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in these First Appeals, the same have been heard together and as such are being decided through this common judgement.

In these appeals the appellants have assailed the judgement and order dated 7.11.1990 passed by Vith Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur.

It emerges from the record the appeals arise out of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act relating to the amount of compensation of the land acquired for construction of the market yard of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur. Admittedly, the land was acquired for the Mandi Samiti, Rampur Maniharan and the compensation of the land acquired is also payable by the Mandi Samiti. The Mandi Samiti has already deposited an amount as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Learned Senior Advocate for the Mandi Samiti, submitted that under the said order passed in the reference, the amount of compensation has been enhanced and ultimately the liability to pay this amount would also fall upon the Mandi Samiti. The Mandi Samiti is vitally entrusted in the subject matter, however, it was not impleaded as a party by the respondents before the court below. However, State of U.P. was impleaded in the proceedings pending before appropriate forums. According to the Mandi Samiti, the compensation has been enhanced disproportionately and the liability to pay such enhanced amount of compensation is to be born by the Samiti. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as pronounced in U.P. Awas Evam V ikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L. Rs. & Ors. J. T. 1994 (7) SCC 304  and contended that the Mandi Samiti ought to have been impleaed as a party and its version should have been considered by the land acquiring authority and at least by the court adjudicating upon the reference under Section 18 of the Land  Acquisition Act. There is force in the submissions of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Mandi Samiti, for whose benefit, the land was acquired by the State Government, the enhancement which amounted to in the attachment of the original amount.

In the present case, enhancement has been made in the attachment of the original amount of compensation as such the Mandi Samiti, which is the legal authority, which takes care of the interests of agriculturists of the area should have been allowed opportunity of hearing. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabodh Verma vs. State of U.P. 1984 (4) SCC 251 has held that all the parties whose rights are going to be affected by the judgement of the court should be heard and an opportunity of hearing should be allowed to such parties.

In view of above, this court is of the opinion that the matter may be remanded back to the appropriate court dealing with the matter of such reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in District-Saharanpur for re-consideration and re-hearing. The said court below shall afford an opportunity of hearing to Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur before proceeding with the case. The court shall also hear all the concerned parties i.e. the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, claimants and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is open to the court to decide this case with an open and independent mind after appreciating facts and law on the subject brought before it.

Since the matter in dispute is pending disposal for the last about 25 years, the case requires expeditious disposal. It is expected that the court shall conclude hearing of the matter within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With these observations, all the above appeals are disposed of.




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.