TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED BOMBAY Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 39 Appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 20-7-1989 of I Addl. District Judge, Budaun given in 39 Land Acquisition References. Since all the references had been consolidated in accordance with Order IV. A, C.P.C. (as Amended in the State of U.P.) they are being disposed of by a common order. First Appeal No. 658 of 1989 Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Sadhu Singh and others arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 5 of 1988 shall be treated as leading case. The appeals were filed by M/s. Tata Fertilizers, Babrala Project, Budaun. Subsequently vide Court's order dated 25-4-1991 the name of the original appellant was deleted and Tata Chemicals Ltd., Bombay House, Bombay was substituted in its place.

(2.) At the instance of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, the State Government acquired land in several villages including Pawari, Baghau and Mehua Hasanganj in the district of Badaun for the purpose of setting up a Fertilizer Factory by Tatas. After acquisition possession over the acquired land was delivered to M/s. Tata Fertilizer Project, Babrala. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Gazette on 17-8-1985. In pursuance of notice under Section 9 of the Act, the tenure-holders whose land had been acquired filed claims to compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Badaun, after holding an enquiry, gave awards as provided by Section 11 of the Act. Some of the tenure-holders who had not accepted the awards made applications to the Collector praying that the matter be referred for the determination of the court in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. The Collector then made references to Court and 40 such references have been decided by the learned Addl. District Judge, Badaun by a common judgment and award dated 20-7-1989 which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.

(3.) In First Appeal No. 659 of 1989 (arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 5 of 1988) the case of the tenure-holders Sadhu Singh and others, in brief, was that plot Nos. 618 area 17 biswas and 619 area 8 biswas situate in village Pawari had been acquired of which they are the owners; that the land was situate very close to Babrala Railway-station and Gunaur-Babrala. Rajpura road passes through the land; that the land was very fertile and yielded three crops in a year; that they earned their livlihood from the acquired land and they had no other source of income; that the land had great potentiality for commercial and industrial purposes; that looking to the quality and location of the land which was near the main road and the railway-station, the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate; that the prevailing price of land in the area was Rs. 70,000.00 to Rs. 80,000.00 per acre and that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000.00 per acre together with additional statutory amount, solatium and interest. The Collector Badaun filed a written-statement on the ground inter alia that the acquired land was miles away from Babrala Railway-station and the road did not pass through the land; that the compensation had been awarded keeping in view the quality of the soil and the vicinity; that the compensation awarded was not less than the prevailing market price of the land during the three preceding years of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act; that the solatium and additional amount permissible under the Act had also been awarded and the compensation had been determined and awarded to the claimants in accordance with Rules and the relevant Government Orders. M/s. Tata Fertilizer Ltd. also filed written statement on the ground inter alia that the claimants had accepted the compensation amount awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer without protest and as such the reference was barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence; that the acquired land was low-lying and unproductive; that the land had no potentiality for commercial and industrial purposes; that the land was not close to Babrala Railway-station and that the compensation amount had been correctly determined and the reference was liable to be rejected.