TEJUMAL BHOJWANI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein (in C. A. Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999) were the owners of large tract of land situate in village Chhauni Gora Barik and/or Chhauni Qadim, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent herein (in C. A. Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999) is the State of U. P., through the Collector, (Land Acquisition Officer, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad), established and constituted under the provisions of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short the Adhiniyam). Under the Adhiniyam, the Parishad is entrusted with certain functions and duties for preparing and executing housing schemes. For the aforesaid purpose in mind, the Parishad issued a notification dated 1st of November, 1974 under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By the aforesaid Notification a large tract of land was sought to be acquired pursuant to a Housing Scheme for construction of houses for the public. The said notification was followed by a Notification dated 11th November, 1978, under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, which is equivalent to Section 6 of the Notification.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Officer gave three different Awards on three different dates. In the case of appellants herein, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 2/- per square feet in first two Awards and Rs. 3/- per square feet in the last Award. It is pertinent to mention here that the Land Acquisition Officer offered separate compensation for the structure standing on the land as well as to the existing Tube Well. The claimants were not satisfied by the compensation and, therefore, they sought compensation before the Civil Court. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7.75, Rs. 12/- and Rs. 15/- per square feet respectively and also enhanced the compensation awarded for the Tube Well as well as the structure standing on the land. Aggrieved, the parties preferred appeals and cross-appeals before the High Court.

(3.) The High Court after considering the matters, modified the judgment of the Reference Court awarding compensation @ Rs. 10/- per square feet. However, it declined to award separate compensation for the Tube Well and the structure standing on the Land. The High Court, however, held that there would be further deduction @ 10% towards the development of the land. The claimants, (appellants in C. A. Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999 and the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and appellants in C. A. Nos. 6383-6398 of 1999) not satisfied, preferred separate appeals by way of special leave petition.