STATE OF U.P. Vs. SMT. MOHNI GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated November 27, 1980 passed by Sri B.D. Agarwal, the then learned District Judge Saharanpur, allowing reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) and decreeing the claim of plaintiff respondent for a sum of Rs. 42317.12 P. as compensation besides simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, minus the amount already paid, in respect of an area on 13 -0 in Plot No. 8/1, in village Sheikhpura, Tahsil Roorkee, District Saharanpur. Facts of the case are almost admitted. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on April 16, 1975 and corrigendum was issued on May 3, 1975 which was published on August 9, 1975. If preceded the notification under Section 6 of the Act dated May 29, 1976 published on July 29, 1976. The purpose for acquisition was the expansion of the Sub -Jail Roorkee. The possession was taken on June 15, 1979. The award was pronounced on September 28, 1979. The sale deed executed on June 17, 1974 in respect of an area of 869 sq. ft. for consideration of Rs. 726 was taken to be the exemplar. The claimant asserted that the amount of compensation payable in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act was inadequate as it was determined on the basis of exemplar dated June 17, 1974 without taking into consideration the potentiality of the land acquired. The State of U.P. the defendant appellant however refuted the claim of plaintiff respondent. Learned District Judge, taking into account relevant case law on the subject and other relevant factors including potentiality of the land, its soundings and situations passed impugned order.

(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel urged that the exemplars taken into consideration by the learned District Judge were for a small piece of land as compared to the land acquired and the sale deeds in respect of smaller properties cannot indicate the proper guidelines for determination of compensation in respect of the larger area. It was further urged that the basis for awarding compensation at a higher rate than the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was erroneous, unwarranted and beyond the provisions of Section 23 of the Act.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties short question that falls for our determination is as to whether the sale deeds in respect of small area can serve as the guideline for large tracts of land and whether the potentiality of the land was such that the order of the District Judge enhancing the compensation could be maintained.