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