U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Ram Chandra Agarwal & Ors

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD .......APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS

J U D G E M E N T

This appeal is directed against order dated 18.5.2001 of

the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby it

disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 with a

direction to the Housing Commissioner to provide funds for

payment of additional compensation to the respondent with a

further direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass 2 appropriate order on the application filed by respondent No.1

for payment of such compensation.

By notification dated 20.12.1969 issued under Section 29

of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Avam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965

(for short, 'the 1965 Act'), the Government of U.P. proposed

acquisition of a huge chunk of land for Ghazipur-Bastauli Bhumi

Vikas Avam Griahsthan Yojna, Lucknow. Final declaration under

Section 32 of the 1965 Act was published on 9.7.1972 and

possession of the land was taken some time in March, July and

September, 1973.

By an award dated 22.3.1975, the Special Land Acquisition

Officer applied belting system for payment of compensation and

fixed market value of the acquired land falling in first belt at

Rs.1.03 per sq.ft. For the land falling in the second and the

third belt, market value was fixed at 66 paisa per sq.ft. and 33

paisa per sq.ft. respectively. He also awarded Rs.24,687.20 for 3 the trees and existing constructions. The Nagar Mahapalika

Tribunal, Lucknow to whom the matter was referred under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act')

passed an award dated 16.3.1984 whereby market value of the

acquired land was substantially enhanced.

After amendment of the Act in 1984, the respondent

submitted application dated 21.11.1984 before the Special Land

Acquisition Officer for payment of additional compensation in

terms of Section 23(1-A). He repeated this request by filing

another application on 26.6.1991. For the next about 20 years,

the Housing Commissioner of the appellant, the Special Land

Acquisition Officer and Additional District Magistrate (Land

Acquisition) exchanged correspondence on the issue of payment of

additional compensation to the respondent, which was calculated

as Rs.65,56,065/-. However, as the amount was not paid to the

respondent, he filed Writ Petition No.8(L/A) of 2001. The High 4 Court took cognizance of the correspondence exchanged between

the functionaries of the State and the Housing Commissioner of

the appellant and disposed of the writ petition by a rather

cryptic order, the last paragraph of which reads as under:

"As the question involved in the present Writ Petition is too trivial to drag on unnecessarily, hence we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Housing Commissioner to provide necessary funds as asked for by the Additional District Magistrate [Land Acquisition], within a period of six weeks. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter will pass appropriate orders on the

application of the petitioner for payment of the compensation and if the same is due, will pay the same to the petitioner in accordance with law."

When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 14.9.2010, it

was brought to the notice of the Court that additional

compensation has already been paid to other land owners under

Section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act. Thereupon, the Secretary of

the appellant was directed to appear in-person along with

records relating to payment of additional compensation. 5

In compliance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Mishri Lal

Paswan, Secretary, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, has appeared

in person. We asked him to clarify as to why additional

compensation has been paid to other land owners without going

into the issue of their entitlement to receive such

compensation, but he could not give satisfactory reply, a

phenomenon which is not unusual in the functioning of the

bureaucracy of the country.

We have heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pallav Sishodia, learned

senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and are convinced

that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside because

the High Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding

the entitlement of respondent No.1 to get additional

compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Act as amended

in 1984.

6

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is

set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh

disposal of the writ petition filed by the respondent. The

parties may file supplementary affidavits within four weeks from

today. They shall be free to raise all points/issues before the

High Court.

Since the acquisition is of the year 1969, we request the

High Court to decide the writ petition within a period of six

months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

order.

...........................J. ( G.S.SINGHVI )

..........................J. 7 ( DR.B.S.CHAUHAN )

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 21, 2010.

8