Mohar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Collector

MOHAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH COLLECTOR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

1. Leave granted.

2. The land of the appellants, situated in village

Khora, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad,

was part and parcel of the total land measuring 902.2046

acres which was proposed to be acquired by a notification

dated 17.03.1988 published on 19.03.1988 under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the

Act”). It appears that finally, land measuring 337.892

acres only, including that of the appellants, was

acquired and the award was passed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer on 01.02.1991, granting compensation

at the rate of Rs.70 per sq. yard.

3. Most of the land owners, including the appellants,

filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned

Xth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide an award

dated 06.04.1998 partly accepted those references and

enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.106 per sq.

yard.

1

4. Various land owners then approached the High Court

by way of First Appeals, for further enhancement of

compensation. These appeals included First Appeal

No.491/1998 (Veer Singh & others vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others), First Appeal No.493/1998 (Megh Singh

and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) and First Appeal

No.477/1998 (Amar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others) etc.

5. The appellants, however, did not file any appeal

before the High Court within a reasonable time. They

eventually preferred the first appeals in the year 2011.

Their appeals were barred by limitation; hence, they

applied for condonation of delay of 12 years and 353

days. The grounds taken by the appellants for condonation

of delay were that due to illiteracy and poverty, they

could not arrange the Court Fee and that they were

advised to file the appeal(s) in September, 2011. They

also put forward the plea that the first appeals against

the same reference award were pending consideration

before the High Court.

6. The High Court has vide impugned order dated

09.03.2016 declined to condone the delay and

consequently, the first appeal(s) preferred by the

appellants have been dismissed.

7. Meanwhile, the batch of first appeals preferred by

other land owners, came to be decided on 04.07.2016,

wherein the High Court enhanced the compensation at the

2 rate of Rs.130 per sq. yard. The operative part of the

judgment dated 04.07.2016 reads as follows:

“19. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the Claimants-appellants deserve to be allowed to the extent that the appellants shall be entitled to receive compensation @ 130/- per Sq. yard along with all statutory benefits and interest after adjustment of the amount already received by them. The deficiency in Court fees shall be recovered from the Claimants-appellants at the time of preparation of final decree.”

8. It is also a matter of record that some of the land

owners, being still dissatisfied with the rate of

compensation determined by the High Court, approached

this Court in C.A. No.12631/2017 (Jitendra and others vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another) & connected matters.

A coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.12.2017 allowed

those appeals in part, in terms of the following order:

“Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 17th March, 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per square yard and the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.106/- per square yard. The value determined by the High Court was Rs.130/- per square yard after making a deduction of 35% towards development cost.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the only modification required in the impugned orders is with respect to the aspect that 25% deduction deserves to be made instead of 35% made by the High Court. We make deduction of 25% in the facts and circumstances of the case instead of 35%. Thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.150/- per square yard instead of Rs.130/- per square yard. The compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.150/- per

3 square yard along with statutory benefits.

The appeals filed by the land owners are allowed to the aforesaid extent.”

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants firstly

seek parity with their co-land owners to whom the High

Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.130 per sq.

yard, followed by further enhancement by this Court to

Rs.150 per sq. yard. It is urged that the High Court

ought to have condoned the delay and treated the

appellants at par with their co-villagers, whose appeals

were at that time pending consideration before the High

Court. On the same analogy, he seeks the higher

compensation as assessed by this Court in Jitendra and

others (Supra), without prejudice to the second

contention raised hereinafter.

10. It is then canvassed that the Reference Court while

assessing the market value of Rs.106 per sq. yard had

relied upon the rate of compensation awarded for the

adjoining land of village Makanpur and since, the High

Court subsequently enhanced the compensation for the land

of village Makanpur to Rs.297 per sq. yard in First

Appeal No.522/2009 (Pradeep Kumar and another vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh and others) decided on 21.04.2016, such

revised rate deserves to be adopted to restore parity

between the land of village Khora with that of village

Makanpur. On this premise, it is asserted that the

appellants too are entitled to be compensated with the

4 higher rate of Rs.297 per sq. yard.

11. Contrarily, learned Senior Counsel for the NOIDA

vehemently contends that there was an inordinate and

unexplained delay of almost 13 years in filing the first

appeal(s). The appellants who slept over the matter being

satisfied with the rate of compensation as determined by

the Reference Court, have rightly been non-suited by the

High Court on account of their gross negligence.

Consequently, the appellants forfeited their so called

right to seek parity which was nothing but an

afterthought claim made out of greed. He points out that

the first appeal(s) were filed with certain defects,

including deficient Court Fees and they never cured such

defects. According to learned Senior Counsel, the plea of

illiteracy or poverty was a lame excuse. Not only that

the appellants are residents of an area which falls in

NCR, they had also gotten a handsome compensation amount

from the Reference Court, which fact alone belies their

plea of poverty and ignorance.

12. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the material placed on record, we are

satisfied that the appellants are entitled to seek parity

with their co-villagers in the grant of compensation for

their acquired land. This Court has consistently held in

a catena of decisions that the inordinate delay in filing

appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal

as the rights and equities between the parties can be

5 well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as

interest for the delayed period. We are thus of the

considered opinion that the delay in filing the first

appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that

the appellants would not be entitled to enure undue

benefit for the delayed period. We grant such indulgence

in the appellant’s favour also for the reason that a

batch of first appeals at the instance of other land

owners was still pending consideration before the High

Court. All that the High Court ought to have emphatically

denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest

including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act

for the period from the date of passing of the award by

the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals.

13. Adverting to the appellants’ claim for enhanced

compensation at the rate fixed by the High Court in

respect of the land of village Makanpur, it may be

noticed that such a plea was expressly raised by the land

owners before the High Court when their first appeals

were decided on 04.07.2016. The High Court unequivocally

rejected the said claim while fixing the compensation at

a lower rate of Rs.130 per sq. yard for the land of

village Khora. This Court in further appeal partly

accepted the claim of the land owners of village Khora

and enhanced the compensation to Rs.150 per sq. yard. In

other words, the claim of parity between the acquired

lands of village Khora and Makanpur was impliedly

6 rejected by this Court. We see no reason to take a

different view. Consequently, we do not find any merit in

the plea that the appellants are entitled to compensation

at par with the land owners of village Makanpur.

14. There is one more plausible reason for us to turn

down the appellant’s claim for the higher rate of Rs.297

per sq. yard. We have condoned the delay of nearly 13

years in filing of their first appeals, only to accord

parity between the similarly placed land-owners on the

anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the

appellants are granted compensation higher than their co-

landowners, despite the fact that such counterparts were

vigilant in pursuing their remedy promptly, it will lead

to hostile discrimination viz those landowners whose fate

already stands sealed upto this Court. This will also

amount to granting premium on, what can be aptly termed

as stale, belated and chance claim of the appellants.

15. Having held so, the appeals are allowed in part;

the appellants are held entitled to compensation at the

rate of Rs.150 per sq. yard for their respective acquired

land. However, the compensation amount shall not include

statutory interest, including on solatium, as per the

rate prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, for the

period from the date of passing of the award by the

Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act till the

filing of the respective first appeals before the High

Court. The appellants shall be required to make good the

7 deficiency in Court Fees before the High Court within

four weeks, whereupon only the arrears of enhanced

compensation shall be paid to them within eight weeks

thereafter.

16. Ordered accordingly.

...................J. (SURYA KANT)

...................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA) New Delhi;

November 07, 2023

8