SMT. SUKH RANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur, dated 23.7.1973. The appellant's agricultural land situated in village Panki Gangaganj, District Kanpur, having an area of 3 bighas 14 biswas was acquired for a scheme known as "Kalyanpur Panki Pandu and Green Belt Scheme No. 40" a scheme framed under the provisions of the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, 1945. Preliminary notification under Section 53 of the said Act was issued on July 25, 1959, and the final notification under Section 60 of the Act was issued on 23.12.1959. Smt. Sukh Rani, the owner of the plots, filed objection claiming compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 1128/ - only at the rate of 80 times of the land revenue of the Bhumidhari plots. As the appellant was not satisfied with the compensation, at her instance, reference was made to the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur, for determining the compensation. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 23.7.1973 awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of Re. 1/ - per square yard. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per square yard. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Sukh Rani died. Thereafter, Babu Lal, her son, has been substituted as the appellant who has prosecuted the appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and the appellant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per square yard which was the prevailing market value of the similar land in the locality. In determining the amount of compensation it is necessary to keep in mind the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 which lays down that the market value of the land on the date of preliminary notification should be taken into consideration. The scheme for which the land was acquired was formulated under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, 1945, Section 17 of the said Act makes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act applicable as modified by that Act, Schedule to the Act contains modification of the Act. Clause 10 of the Schedule modifies Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the amended provisions the market value of the land shall he the market value according to the use to which the land was put on the date the preliminary notification was published. The Kanpur Urban Area Development Act was repealed by Section 582 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, and the scheme framed under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act was continued and validated under Section 577 of the Adhiniyam. Consequently, the acquisition made under the 1955 Act shall be deemed to be under 1959 Adhiniyam.

(3.) IN the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant's land which was acquired for development scheme is situated at Kalyanpur Panki road on the out -skirts of the Kanpur town which is a fast developing town. There is no dispute that the land is situated near the Panki Power House. In the circumstances there was possibility of the use of the land in the near future as a potential building site. Though on the date of the issue of the preliminary notification the land was put for agricultural purposes, but, it was reasonably capable of being used as building site in the near future. It is well settled as observed in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer : AIR 1939 PC 98 that it is the possibilities of the land and not its realized possibilities that must be taken into consideration. While considering the question of market value. In Raghubansh Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government : AIR 1967 SC 465 it was again held that the market value on the basis of which compensation, is payable under Section 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In Collector v. Harisingh Thakur and another : AIR 1979 SC 472 the Supreme Court observed that while considering the question of the potential value of a land regard must be had to its condition and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put, its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering one with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof. The market value of the land in dispute has to be determined in the background of the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases.