Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents has pointed out that out of the very same notification relating to the very same land a Land Acquisition Reference No. 12 of 1999 was decided and a First Appeal No. 349 of 2001 (U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Kishan Singh and others) had been filed before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 20.12.2010 has finally decided the controversy. Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not dispute the aforesaid submission made by learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) THE judgment dated 20.12.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 349 of 2001 (U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Kishan Singh and others) is quoted hereunder: This first appeal has been filed by the Appellant Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur Nagar under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by Smt. Manju Nigam, the then I Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Land Acquisition Reference No. 12 of 1999, whereunder reference has been allowed and the Respondent -claimant has been held entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/ -per bigha with effect from date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 17.3.1997 alongwith solatium at the rate of 30%, additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% with effect from date of notification under Section 4 till date of possession i.e. 5.6.1997, interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year with effect from 5.6.1997 to 5.6.1998 and further interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire amount with effect from 6.6.1998 till date of recovery. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has advanced his arguments on various points alleging that the learned court below has illegally placed reliance of sale exemplars of very small area to justify the enhancement, since large area of agricultural land was acquired and the same exemplars of small areas were liable to be ignored in the light of the settled judicial pronouncements. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has further contended that sale exemplars filed by the claimants were neither proved by the evidence nor genuineness of the same were admitted and the learned court below did not record its finding thereon and thus the award passed by the court below is illegal, erroneous and bad in law. The claimants also failed to prove their claim for higher compensation and the learned court below granted excessive compensation by taking into consideration of building potentiality of the site and its location and no fresh evidence was laid before the court below to seek further enhancement. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has further contended that the nature of the land acquired was purely agricultural, hence market value was liable to be determined as such but the learned court below presumed the same to be developed one for building purpose on the date of notification. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also contended that the court below made deduction of 40% only, while deductions should have been made up to 45%. A perusal of judgment and order passed in this reference goes to show that the court below accepted the sale deed as exemplar executed by one Sheetal Singh in respect of his land area 280.50 sq. meters at the rate of Rs. 3,70,000/ -per bigha and the learned court deducted 40% from the said amount of consideration and assessed Rs. 2,22,000/ -per bigha for purpose of compensation, because the land of 4.538 hectares belonging to claimant was acquired by Respondent. The learned Counsel for both parties have agreed that there is no dispute in respect of the rate at which the compensation has been fixed but the deduction can be increased from 40% to 45% taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case and this appeal can be decided in the light of above observations. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and agreement arrived at between the parties, this appeal is decided with this direction that the deduction made by the court below in the above amount is increased from 40% to 45% as agreed by the learned Counsel for parties. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is also disposed of in the same terms and conditions as the judgment of the Division Bench quoted hereinabove.
(3.) NO order is passed as to cost.;