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


The E.S.I.Corp., Kanpur Nagar v. Sri Saghanu Mishra - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 703 of 2001 [2004] RD-AH 1540 (29 November 2004)


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. 24

First Appeal No. 148   of 1979

Collector ,Saharanpur


Smt. Shanti Devi

Hon.Sanjay Misra.J.

Heard Sri P.P.Chaudhary , learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of appellant.

The instant first appeal has been preferred agaist the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1978  passed by the IVth  Additional District Judge  Saharanpur in Land Acquisition No. 10 of 1978 (Fakir Chandra  and others Versus Collector Saharanpur).

The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal is  that the land measuring 210 Bighas , 9 Biswa  and 9 Biswansi  situate in village Sarai Pargana Jawalapur Tehsil Roorkee District Sahranpur was acquired by the State Government for construction  of drain to carry sewage at Jawalpur town . The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the official gazette  on 29.7.1971 and declaration under section 6 read with section 17 of the said Act was published on 31.12.1971. Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1740 per bigha +  15% solatium for the acquisition of  the claimant's plot No. 70  measuring 21 Bighas and 5 Biswas  situate in village Sarai  Pargana Jawalapur Tehsil Roorkee District Saharanpur.  

Feeling aggrieved the claimant respondent preferred the reference under section 18 of the Act and claimed that the market value of the land was Rs. 10,000 per bigha.  He  also made a claim with respect to loss of his livelihood. Reference court framed issue as to whether the compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer   is inadequate  and as to whether the claimant is entitled to any amount of compensation for loss of livelihood on account of acquisition.  The claimant relied upon a sale deed dated 15.12.1965 with respect to plot no. 3186/2 measuring 8 Biswa and plot no. 3187/1  measuring 6 Biswa situate in the same village. He stated that the aforesaid sale deed should be considered for determining compensation.  He also relied on a sale deed dated 15.12.1975 with relation to land situate in the town of Jwalpur . the reference court discarded both the sale deeds on the ground that they were not relevant for determining the market value as on the date of notification published under section 4 of the Act. The claimant gave his statement before the reference court  and stated that his plot was irrigated by the canal and that land yields crop of wheat, Barseem, Peas and vegetables . In support of his case claimant also produced  Abdullah who corroborated the statement of the claimant and also that of Khasra entries with respect to plot no.70 of the claimant respondent.

The State in its objection relied upon the circle rate of the land with respect to the year 1920 and stated that same should be made basis for a  warding compensation . The reference court rejected the said plea of the State and held that circle rate prevailing in 1920 cannot be made basis for determining the compensation in 1971 i. .e. more than 50 years later.  A sale deed dated 5.4.1971 pertaining to plot no. 317 of the village was also filed by the State as exemplar. Under the said sale deed , the land was transferred at the rate of Rs. 3448 per bigha.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer  while granting compensation has reduced the rate with respect to certain plots of land on the basis of classifications of soil.  The claimant respondent  submitted that on the basis of evidence led by him  said reduction made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was incorrect. The khasra of 1378 F to 1380- F was filed which related to plot No. 70 belonging to the claimant. The reference court accepted the evidence of the claimant and held that the quality of land belonging to the claimant was not in any way inferior to that of plot no.317 and held that there was no justification for reducing the price of land in question on the basis of soil classification

On issue no. 2, reference court  refused to grant any amount to the claimant for loss of livelihood as a result of said acquisition .

Learned Standing counsel has stated that reference court has committed an error in awarding   compensation  at the rate  plot no. 317  was sold through sale deed dated 5.4.1971 on the ground that said plot was irrigated plot capable of yielding two crops in an year. He has submitted that the plot of the claimant does not have similar soil nor it is of better quality than that of plot no.317.

From a perusal of the record, it transpires that land of the claimant being plot no. 70 was irrigated land capable of yielding  three crops per year . Khasra entries have been proved by the evidence of two witnesses which indicate that the said land has  good quality of soil  and the land has improved in fertility and quality due to proper irrigation, proper tilling and manuring . The finding of the reference court to the said effect cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to place any evidence with respect to the claimants plot being inferior in any manner to plot no. 317. The reference court has rightly fixed the rate of compensation at  Rs. 3448 per bigha and awarded 15% solatium on the  amount. The reference court has rightly awarded 6% interest per annum from the date of dispossession to the date of payment. By interim order dated 19.12.1985 , this Court had stayed the execution of the decree  subject to the condition that appellant deposits the entire decretal amount within three months and the said amount would be withdrawn by the respondents after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the executing court. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said amount has not been deposited before the executing  court  nor there is anything on record to indicate that the same has not been withdrawn by the claimants.

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment and award  passed by the reference court. This appeal has  no force and is accordingly dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs

Dt. 27.1.2005



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.