NAGAR MAHAPALIKA AGRA Vs. KALAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Nagar Mahapalika, Agra acquired certain land for North Vijay Nagar Development Scheme. A Notification was issued under Section 36 (2) of the Town Improvement Act and published in the U. P. Gazette on 29-7-1950. Notification under Section 42 (1) of this Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 24-11-1951. The plot in dispute bears Khasra No. 1810 situate in village Ghatwasan, Tahsil-11 Agra, District Agra. Its area is one bigha which is equal to 2756 square yards. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 9/8.00 to Smt. Kalawati. Objections were filed by Smt. Kalawati claiming this compensation to be most inadequate. The claim by the objector was Rs. 5.00 per square yard. The Collector then made a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Agra has decreed the claim of the objector for Rs. 11,014/7.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the possession till the date of payment of compensation money vide its judgment dated 26-3-1965.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, this first appeal has been filed on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika Agra.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the other hand has brought to my notice a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 139 of 1964, Sita Ram v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra connected with First Appeal No. 140 of 1964, Lala Narain Das Jain v. Agra Mahapalika which was decided on 16-4-1975. The point which has been canvassed by the appellants' counsel as narrated above has been dealt with in detail in this Division Bench case. It has been held therein that the potential value of the land was to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation payable under the Town Improvement Act. Schedule Section 10 of the Town Improvement Act has been declared ultra vires by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1973 All LJ 656 = (AIR 1973 All 647), Prabhu Lal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is not necessary for me to repeat the details given in these cases cited above. Suffice it to say that the Division Bench case of this Court which has set the controversy at rest, is binding upon me. I find no reason to disagree with this Division Bench case.