Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant states that out of the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act several First appeals have been filed and have been finally decided by the judgment and order dated 06.10.2010. He states that the present appeal also arises out of the same notification dated 17.03.1997 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and this appeal be also decided in terms of the judgment. Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal No. 550 of 2003 is being reproduced below: Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that out of the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act several First Appeals were filed and have been finally decided by the judgment dated 6.10.2010. He states that the present appeal also arises out of the same notification dated 17.3.1997 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and this appeal be also decided in terms of that judgment. A copy of the judgment dated 6.10.2010 has been produced by learned Counsel for both the parties. A perusal thereof indicates that as many as 13 First Appeals, the leading First Appeal being numbered as First Appeal No. 367 of 2003 (U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Chandra Pal and Ors.) has been decided by the judgment dated 6.10.2010, which is quoted here under: Heard Sri Siddharth Verma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri L.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the claimant -Respondents. These appeals have been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short UPSIDC) against the judgment, order and award of reference courts. The land was acquired by the State of U.P. for the benefit of the UPSIDC vide notification dated 17.3.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was made on behalf of the Collector on 15.5.1998 against which references under Section 18 of the Act preferred wherein compensation on the basis of the exemplar sale deed dated 10.6.1997 at the rate of Rs. 3,70,000/ -per bigha was determined and after applying deduction of 45% compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,03,500/ -per bigha along with other statutory benefits have been awarded. The submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that in the present case a much higher rate of deduction ought to have been made as the land in question is situate much interior to the main road. Learned Counsel for the claimant -Respondent submitted that in respect of same scheme, award of compensation by the reference court in several other references on the basis of same exemplar has been upheld by this Court and the appeals of the UPSIDC have been dismissed. Generally, in determining compensation after choosing the best exemplar, deduction of 1/3rd is applied. However, in the present case deduction of 45% has already been made from the rate determined on the basis of best exemplar so chosen. A Division Bench of this Court in large number of appeals arising from the same acquisition has already held that the rate of compensation which has been fixed after deduction at the rate of 40% to 45% cannot be faulted with and there is no scope for any interference. Two such judgments, one dated 16.2.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 468 of 2002 UPSIDC v. Brij Bhushan Singh and another dated 19.4.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 131 of 2002 UPSIDC v. Ram Naresh and Ors. have been produced before me. In view of above decisions, I do not consider that there is any scope of more than 45% deduction from the market value determined on the basis of the exemplar. Award of compensation by the reference court is just and proper which requires no interference. Accordingly, all the appeals lack merit and are dismissed. No order as to costs. Learned Counsel for the Respondents agrees to the submission made by learned Counsel for the Appellant. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is also dismissed for the same reasons. No order is passed as to costs.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court there is no occasion to take a different view, therefore, this appeal is also being dismissed without imposing any costs.;