U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh vs State Of U.P. And Ors.
- SCC(1997) 5 SCC 148
- Neutral1997 INSC 327
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 3675
- SCR[1997] 3 SCR 389
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where sale deeds are relied upon to support a claim for enhanced compensation in land acquisition proceedings, those documents are not legally admissible evidence unless the vendor and vendee are examined to substantiate them. A reference court cannot properly consider compensation claims without such examination of the parties to the documents. Where a reference court has not properly considered claims in their legal perspective and has based its award on inadmissible evidence, the matter must be remitted to the reference court for fresh consideration of evidence adduced in accordance with law, rather than being finally disposed of on appeal based on technical grounds such as limitation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on October 17, 1994 in F.A. No. 271/1994 and batch.
2. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") was published on June 3, 1979 acquiring a total extent of 24.9 acres of land for public purpose, namely, for establishment of road transport depot. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 11.25 per sq. yard. On reference under Section 18 of Act, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25 per sq. yard. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. Thus, these appeals.
3. On our direction the learned Counsel for the parties have placed on record the adduced evidence. It is now admitted position that two sale deeds has been filed in support of the claim of higher compensation but neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined to substantiate those documents which is not the evidence legally admissible nor to be considered. The reference Court also did not properly consider the claims in the legal perspective. Thus, we find that the approach adopted by the High Court as well as the reference Court is not correct in law. However, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. We set aside the award and decree of the reference Court and that of the Division Bench of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the reference Court with a direction to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh, consider the same in the light of the law laid down by this Court and then decide the compensation accordingly within six months from the receipt of this order.
4. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed but, in the circumstances without costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free