M/S MAHAMAYA GEN.FINANCE CO.LTD. Vs STATE OF U.P. .
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-005514-005514 / 2014
Diary number: 33924 / 2008
Advocates: RANJEETA ROHATGI Vs
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5514 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2715 OF 2009)
M/S MAHAMAYA GEN. FINANCE ... APPELLANT (S) CO. LTD.
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ... RESPONDENT (S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5515 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11371 OF 2009)
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By notification dated 21.10.1969 issued under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”) approximately 455 acres of land situated in
villages Prahlad Garhi, Maharajpur and Karket Madan was
1
Page 2
proposed to be acquired in favour of the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to
as “the Corporation’). An area measuring 42 bighas
belonging to the appellant was included in the said
Notification.
3. Consequential Notifications under Section 6 and 17(1)
of the Act were published on 23.6.1970. Possession of the
acquired land was taken over on 10.09.1970 and the award
was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on
4.5.1972 granting compensation at the rate of Rs.1.33 per
square yard. In doing so, a sale deed dated 20.1.1969 in
respect of an area of about 200 square yard situated in the
village Maharajpur sold for Rs.400/- was taken as the base
exemplar. 33% deduction was made on account of the
smallness of the area covered by the aforesaid sale deed,
thereby, assessing compensation for the acquired land at
Rs.1.33 per square yard.
4. The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of
the Act. Before the Reference Court the appellant filed sale
2
Page 3
deeds dated 13.06.1969 (Ex.1) and 16.10.1969 (Ex.2)
executed by it in respect of land in the vicinity of the land
acquired. The Reference Court, however, refused to accept
and rely on the said sale deeds on the ground that the
appellant, having come to know of the acquisition
proceedings, had sold land at inflated price; the correct price
was not known to the vendors who were not local residents
of Meerut. The Reference Court, by order dated 26.08.1975,
accordingly maintained the compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer.
5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a first appeal before the
High Court seeking enhanced compensation. The claim was
refused by order dated 17.8.2004 primarily on the ground
that before determining the rate of compensation, the Land
Acquisition Officer had verified 66 sale deeds in respect of
lands situated in the neighbourhood which were sold within
one year of/from the date of issuance of the Notifications in
question.
3
Page 4
6. Not satisfied, the appellant sought a review of the
aforesaid order dated 17.8.2004 which was declined by the
High Court by its order dated 26.08.2008. The appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No.2715 of 2009 has been instituted in
respect of the order of the High Court dated 26.08.2008
passed in the review application whereas SLP (C) No.11371
of 2009 has been filed against the main order of the High
Court dated 17.08.2004.
7. We have heard Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
the order dated 26.08.1975 passed by the Reference Court
is ex-facie erroneous inasmuch as the sale deeds dated
13.06.1969 (Ex.1) and 16.10.1969 (Ex.2) which could have
furnished a reasonable basis for computing the correct
quantum of compensation was brushed aside by the learned
Reference Court for reasons that are plainly unacceptable.
Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that
4
Page 5
Exhibit-1 (sale deed dated 12.6.1969) pertains to an area
measuring 233 square yards and the sale transaction was
effected at Rs.5126/- i.e. Rs.22/- per square yards whereas
Exhibit-2 (sale deed dated 16.10.1969) pertains to an area of
675 square yards which was sold for a total consideration of
Rs.13,320/- i.e. Rs.19.73 per square yards. The aforesaid
sale transactions being in respect of land located in the
same village i.e. Maharajpur and additionally belonging to
the appellant itself, the Reference Court was not right in
brushing aside the same on the grounds, already noticed. It
is urged that the High Court having failed to correct the
aforesaid error, appropriate interference by this Court will be
justified.
9. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of
the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
contended that the compensation determined by the Land
Acquisition Officer, as affirmed by the Reference Court and
the High Court, was preceded by an elaborate exercise
wherein as many as 66 contemporaneous sale deeds were
verified. That apart, leaving aside the two sale deeds dated
5
Page 6
13.06.1969 (Ex.1) and 16.10.1969 (Ex.2), no other material
was laid by the appellant at any stage of the proceeding to
show that in respect of same acquisition higher
compensation has been awarded to any land owner. The
award made by the Land Acquisition Officer as upheld by the
Reference Court and the High Court is, therefore, contended
to be fair and reasonable not justifying any interference.
10. We have considered the submissions advanced on
behalf the parties and the materials on record. The
compensation awarded to the appellants at the rate of
Rs.1.33 per square yard is based on the sale deed dated
20.01.1969 (Ex. A-1) in respect of a plot measuring 200
square yards situated in the village Maharajpur which was
sold by one Naseerudin for Rs.400/-. The sale deeds dated
13.06.1969 and 16.10.1969 exhibited by the appellant
before the Reference Court were not considered for the
reasons already noted. The close proximity of the dates of
aforesaid two sale deeds with the date of the acquisition
which has been cited as one of the reasons for not accepting
Exbt.1 and Exbt.2 sale deeds does not commend to us. That
6
Page 7
the said sale deeds are in close proximity of time with the
acquisition and being in respect of land located in one of the
villages, covered by the acquisition Notification and above all
the land being owned by the appellant itself, in our
considered view, are vital factors that could not have been
ignored. The finding of the Reference Court, upheld by the
High Court, to the effect that the sales covered by Exbt.1
and Exbt.2 were executed at inflated rates by the appellant
on coming to know of the acquisition proceeding cannot be
appreciated. In the order of the Reference Court as well as
in the order of the High Court there is no indication on what
basis the said finding had been arrived at. What had led the
learned courts below to come to the conclusion that the
appellants had prior knowledge of the proposed acquisition
and on that basis had executed the sale deeds “in a hurry to
dispose of the plots which had been carved out” also is not
known. The further conclusion that the vendees of the
aforesaid sale deeds, not being local residents, did not know
about the acquisition proceedings and they were charged
fanciful prices for the land is plainly unacceptable in the
7
Page 8
absence of any materials on record to the said effect.
Evidence of vital nature furnished by the two sale deeds
dated 13.06.1969 (Exbt.1) and 16.10.1969 (Exbt.2) could not
have been rejected on the basis of such surmises and
conjectures as has been done in the present case. The High
Court having failed to rectify the aforesaid apparent errors
we are of the view that the transactions effected by the two
sale deeds dated 13.06.1969 (Exbt.1) and 16.10.1969
(Exbt.2) must receive due consideration in the determination
of the compensation payable to the appellant.
11. The acquisition in the present case was proposed in the
year 1969 and the possession of the land had been taken
from the appellant as far back as in the year 1970. Due to
long efflux of time that has occurred we are of the view that
the present is a fit case wherein the task of determination of
the basis for quantification of the compensation due and
payable to the appellant should be undertaken by us in order
to give a quietus to the lis between the parties.
8
Page 9
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the
compensation awarded by the learned Acquisition Officer as
affirmed by the Reference Court and the High Court by the
orders under appeal. Instead, we direct that the
compensation payable to the appellant shall now be
computed by taking into account the average of the price, at
which the two transactions by sale deeds dated 13.06.1969
(Exbt.1) and 16.10.1969 (Exbt.2) were effected, as noted
above, along with solatium and interest as payable under
the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad,
U.P., shall make the necessary computation in terms of the
present order so as to enable the appellant to receive the
balance amount of compensation along with solatium and
interest as payable, forthwith, and in any case within three
months from the date of receipt of this order.
9
Page 10
13. Both the appeals shall now stand allowed to the extent
indicated above.
……………………....…………………………J [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
……………………....…………………………J [RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI, MAY 08, 2014.
1