Shivaraj V. Patil J. - (1.) These appeals are by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgments of the High Court enhancing the amount of compensation and fixing the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.8/- or Rs.9/- per square yard, as the case may be. Large extent of land was notified for acquisition for UPSIDC for planned development of industries. In that regard notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) was published on 25-4-1972. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 30-11-1976 fixing the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard. Some land owners, not being satisfied with the market value so fixed, made applications to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act for making reference. The reference court, by its judgment dated 2-9-1980, rejected six references Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 12 of 1977, upholding the market value of the lands fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer finding that there was no evidence to enhance the market value. The reference court in reference Nos. 7, 9, 45 and 100 of 1977 enhanced the market value of lands to Rs. 8/- per square yard by its common judgment dated 18-12-1981. Reference court in reference Nos. 21, 25, 32 and 42 of 1977 rejected the reference affirming the market value of the lands awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court in First Appeal No. 808 of 1984, filed against the order made by the reference court in L.A.R. No. 32 of 1977, and in First Appeal No. 537 of 1980, arising out of the order passed in L.A.R. No. 21 of 1977, enhanced the market value of lands to Rs.9/- per square yard and in First Appeal No. 536 of 1980 and 548 of 1994 arising out of L.A.R. Nos. 25 and 42 of 1977 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8/- per square yard. Hence these appeals as already stated above.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the High Court was not right and justified in enhancing the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 8/- or Rs. 9/- per square yard, as the case may be, as against the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; 4(1) notification was issued on 25-4-1972 for acquiring the lands in question and the Land Acquisition Officer was right in relying upon the relevant material, evidence contained in sale deed dated 28-5-1971 executed few months prior to issuance of 4(1) notification, that too executed by two of the claimants. According to the learned counsel on the basis of this sale deed the Land Acquisition Officer rightly fixed the market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard: the High Court failed to notice that the lands in question were agricultural lands and in some of the lands there were deep pits; they could not have been valued on the basis of the developed lands for the purpose of industrial sites. The learned counsel also urged that the High Court relied on the judgment passed in First Appeal No. 808 of 1984. This judgment was followed in First Appeal Nos. 536-537 of 1980 in respect of some of the lands acquired under the very same 4(1) notification. But the correctness and validity of the judgment in First Appeal No. 808 of 1984 is itself under challenge in one of these appeals; although special leave petition filed against this judgment was rejected, later it was reviewed, leave was granted and the special leave petition is now registered as Civil Appeal No. 7121 of 2000.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned judgments. They urged that Special Land Acquisition Officer committed an error in taking the lands as agricultural lands in fixing the market value even after noticing their potentialities.;