(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Ghaziabad Development Authority ______________________ Appellant
v.
Ram Krishana & Ors. _____________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 1710 of 2016, decided on February 23, 2016
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20731/2015]
With
Civil Appeal No. 1711 of 2016, [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10483/2015], Civil Appeal No. 1712 of 2016, [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20736/2015], Civil Appeal No. 1713 of 2016, [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20739/2015], Civil Appeal No. 1714 of 2016, [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20742/2015], Civil Appeal No. 1715 of 2016, [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20744/2015], Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 2016, [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20745/2015 and Civil Appeal No. 1717 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11811/2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted in each of these cases.
2. The events leading to the initiation of these appeals, upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, would show a highly chequered history which will be necessary to set out though very briefly.
3. A total area of 6159 acres of land in 23 villages of District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh was proposed to be acquired. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the L.A. Act”) was published on 09.0.1962. The public purpose behind the acquisition is stated to be planned development of the area and to provide low density residential accommodation in Ghaziabad.
4. In the present cases, the land acquired is in Village Jatwara Kalan and the area is 386 acres. It may be specifically noticed at this stage that there is a subsequent notification dated 18.08.1962 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act proposing to acquire another 34 acres of land in the same village i.e. Jatwara Kalan for the same purpose. As the issue would have some relevance in the discussions that will unfold it is clarified, at this stage, that out of aforesaid 34 acres of land covered by notification dated 18.08.1962, one Anoop Singh, was the owner of 2 Bighas 1 Biswas of land, which was subjected to acquisition by said notification dated 18.08.1962.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the land into three categories and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.92 per sq.yd. for land within 100 yards from the Highway; Rs. 0.96 per sq.yd. for the land beyond 100 yards upto the depth of another 100 yards and Rs. 0.48 per sq.yd. for land beyond the depth of 200 sq.yd. This was in respect of land covered by notification dated 07.06.1962.
6. It appears that the respondent-landowners filed reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for enhancement of compensation. It also appears that many of the landowners entered into an agreement for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1.00 per sq.yd. Necessary action in terms of the aforesaid agreement appears to have also taken place.
7. Thereafter in the year 1979, i.e. 15 years after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 01.02.1964, three references were entertained by the concerned Court and by order dated 23.05.1987 compensation in the said reference cases was fixed at Rs. 7/- per sq.yd. In doing so the reference Court took into account the compensation awarded in the reference order in the case of Anoop Singh at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq.yd. The reference order in case of Anoop Singh is dated 31.05.1984.
8. Three appeals were filed by the State against the aforesaid order dated 23.05.1987 of the reference Court. While the appeals were pending two more references were registered in the year 1989 pertaining to land acquired by the notification dated 09.02.1962. By a common order dated 10.04.1992 the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 40/- per sq.yd again by placing reliance on the decision of the reference Court dated 31.05.1984 in the case of Anoop Singh.
9. The aforesaid order(s) was put to challenge by the State as well as by the landowners before the High Court. The High Court by the common impugned order dated 1.12.2014 decided all the appeals. While the appeals filed by the State for reduction of the compensation from Rs. 40/- per sq.yd. was dismissed, the appeals filed by the landowners for enhancement of compensation was allowed by awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq.yd. The compensation of Rs. 85/- per sq.yd. was on the basis of a decision of this Court dated 23.01.2003 in the case of Anoop Singh affirming the order of the High Court enhancing the compensation to Rs. 85/- per sq.yd. The said enhancement was made by the High Court in an appeal by the landowner Anoop Singh against the compensation awarded by the learned reference Court at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq.yd. The decision of this Court is reported in 2003 (2) SCC 484, “Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh.”
10. It is against the aforesaid common order of the High Court dated 01.12.2014 that the present group of appeals have been filed.
11. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. We have read and considered all the materials that were considered relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication.
12. Though a number of issues have been struck on the basis of the rival arguments including the bonafides of the subsequent references in which enhancement of compensation were made as also the applicability of the decision of this Court in Anoop Singh to the present case and also the distinguishing features in the case of Anoop Singh for grant of higher compensation, we are of the view that the matter is capable of resolution within a short compass.
13. The basis of the claim for enhanced compensation by the landowners (Rs. 85/- per sq.yd.) is the decision of this Court in Anoop Singh (supra). Having considered the relevant material surrounding the circumstances in which compensation was awarded in the case of Anoop Singh by the High Court to Rs. 85/- per sq.yd. and affirmed by this Court, we are of the view that the same rate of compensation cannot be allowed to the landowners in the present group of appeals.
14. There are several reasons for taking the aforesaid view. The first and foremost is that the Section 4 notification in Anoop Singh case is subsequent to the Section 4 notification involved in the present cases; the two dates being 18.08.1962 and 09.02.1962 respectively. There are materials on record to show that the land involved in Anoop Singh’s case was small in area (2 Bighas and 1 Biswas) and the same is more strategically located than the land of the present landowners. The land in Anoop Singh’s case is adjacent to the Ghaziabad-Hapur Highway whereas the land of the present respondent-landowners are somewhat in the interior. That apart the materials on record would indicate that the land of Anoop Singh was in the then Municipal Area of Ghaziabad whereas the land of present landowners were not so.
15. Over and above all that, we have on record, though there is some dispute over this issue that the claim of the landowners in the reference Court was initially Rs. 4/- per sq.yd. and then enhanced to Rs. 14/- per sq.yd. and finally to Rs. 40/- per sq. yd. Though a claim of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq.yd. was made before the High Court it does not appear that there is any formal order allowing such enhanced claim to be made. In the totality of the circumstances indicated above, we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land from Rs. 40/- per sq.yd to Rs. 85/- per sq.yd.
16. The above would require us to consider what would be a fair measure of compensation that should now be awarded to the respondent(s) as the enhanced compensation of Rs. 85/- has been found to be unjustified.
17. In the absence of sufficient materials on record, as in the present case, the cases should be remitted for redetermination of the compensation payable. However, as the initial notification in the present cases was issued in the year 1962, we are not inclined to do so and instead deem it appropriate to embark upon an exercise to determine the question finally by taking into account such materials that are available on record.
18. The claim of the landowners which originated at Rs. 4/- per sq.yd has been amended/enhanced to Rs. 14/- and then to Rs. 40/- per sq.yd. Beyond the above figure, as already noted by us, there is no formal order allowing any amendment of the claimed amount though the landowners had claimed that compensation should be at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq.yd. If the land of the respondent landowners as held by us is located in the interior and not as strategically and conveniently located as the land of Anoop Singh, we are of the view that some reduction of the compensation awarded in the case of Anoop Singh would be justified. The area of the land involved is also a material fact. It is our considered view that all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case would require such reduction to be worked out to the extent of 50% which means that the landowners would now be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 42.50 per sq.yd. In fixing the above amount as compensation we are not unmindful that an exercise of computation of the amount of compensation necessarily involves some amount of approximation and guess work.
19. Consequently, we allow these appeals of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, set aside the order of the High Court passed in each of the cases and determine the compensation payable to the respondent as above. All consequential reliefs and orders will follow.
20. On behalf of the appellant the Court has been assured that the compensation, along with all statutory benefits, will be paid to the respondent-landowners on or before 31st July, 2016.
———
