High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.E.B. v. Iiird A.D.J. & Others - WRIT - C No. 2006 of 1982  RD-AH 17270 (5 October 2006)
Judgment Reserved on 12.9.2006
Judgment Delivered on 5.10.2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2006 of 1982
U.P.S.E.B Versus III Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
In this case learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on 12.9.2006 and judgment was reserved. The order dated 12.9.2006 is quoted below:
"List revised. No one appears for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to tell the court as to whether against the impugned order dated 17.12.1981 passed by III Additional District Judge, Allahabad in L.A reference No. 109 of 1979 any appeal was filed by the State of U.P or not."
Through notifications under section 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act issued on 23.3.1977 and 25.6.1977, land in dispute was acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for Petitioner U.P State Electricity Board for setting up sub-station at Manauri district Allahabad. Thereafter Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the compensation of the acquired land. Not being satisfied by the quantum of compensation, respondent Nos. 3 to 8 Jia Mohammad and others who were the tenure holders of the acquired land applied for making reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was made to the District Judge, Allahabad, which was registered as L.A Reference No. 109 of 1979. The reference was transferred to III A.D.J Allahabad for disposal. III A.D.J Allahabad through judgment and decree dated 17.2.1981, determined the valuation of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1800 per Pucca Biswa i.e Rs. 36000/- per Pucca Bigha.
The S.L.O had awarded total compensation of about Rs.88000/-. In reference, it was enhanced to about Rs.295000/-. This writ petition is directed against order passed by Reference Court/ III A.D.J dated 17.2.1981.
The main ground taken in this writ petition is that the award is void and bad in law as no notice was given to the petitioner. In para 9 of the writ petition and ground No.2 a vague assertion about the award being excessive has also been made. The said para and ground are quoted below:
Para 9: That the award of the respondent No.1 of Rs.295246/- is highly excessive.
Ground No.2:Because the award of compensation of respondent No.2 is inordinately excessive and the award is contrary to law.
As far as question of notice to petitioner for whom land was acquired is concerned, the Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench Authority reported in AIR 1995 SC 724 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi has held under para 49 that the authority or company for whom land is acquired is proper party in proceedings before the Reference Court and against order of Reference Court such authority or company can file appeal if Government does not file appeal. It has further been held that Collector as well as Reference Court shall give notice to such Authority. However under para 49.10 it has specifically been mentioned that the matters which stand finally concluded will not be reopened.
Under para 49.3. it has been held that the authority for whom the land is acquired can file writ petition in the High Court against award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, in view of para 49.10 of the aforesaid authority it can not be said that the awards delivered before 1995 are illegal on the ground that notice was not issued by the Reference Court to the authority for whom land was acquired.
In respect of rate of market value determined by the Reference Court nothing specific has either been stated in the writ petition or argued. It has neither been stated nor argued that the exemplar relied upon by the Reference Court did not denote correct market value and the land covered by the said exemplar did not possess same advantages and disadvantages as the land in dispute. Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed executed about one and half year before section 4 notification. Orders on other references in respect of land of the same village and of the adjoining village acquired at about the same time as the land in dispute were also filed and relied by the Reference Court. In the said judgments, market value was determined at the rate of Rs.1800/- per biswa. Same market value was determined through the impugned judgment also which was quite legal. Apart from it, Reference Court also noticed that land was adjacent to main road and its situation was better than the situation of the land covered by the other awards. Comparison was made by the Reference Court with the help of the map.
I do not find any such error in the findings of Reference Court in respect of market value which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Material on which the judgment is based was quite relevant for determining the market value. No irrelevant material or aspect was considered by the Reference Court.
Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.