- (1.) The present appeal has been filed against judgment and award dated 31st May, 1995 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 27 of 1989, whereby it had awarded compensation in respect of Plot No. 455-A at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard. To redress the residential problem of the public of Moradabad, the appellant by issuing notification under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Ewam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, proposed to acquire Khasra No. 455-A situate at Civil Lines Chhavni, Tehsil & District Moradabad which was followed by another notification issued under Section 32 of the said Act dated 7th December, 1969. On 3rd December, 1971, the possession of land so acquired was taken. The award determining compensation was passed on 11th January, 1994 in respect of acquired land measuring 11.206 Acres, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Officer'), who awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard for first belt within 100 feet from the road and Rs. 8/- per square yard was fixed for remaining land. On application made by the respondents for making reference, the matter was referred to Civil Court for determination of market value of the land so acquired. It was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 27 of 1989. Before the reference Court, number of issues including area of the land so acquired was raised. The reference Court framed the following issues: 1. "What is the area of the land actually acquired by the O.P.'s. ? 2. Whether the entire land so acquired belonged to Sahu Hargulal? 3. Whether the land so acquired devolved in the present petitioners? If so its effect? 4. Whether the land so acquired includes 13 Quarters as alleged? 5. Whether the tube well existing on the land so acquired was worth Rs. 25,000/-? 6. Whether the trees standing on the land so acquired were worth Rs. 10,000/-? 7. Whether the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1984 are not applicable to the case in hand? 8. Whether the reference under Section 18 of L.A.Act is barred by limitation? 9. To what compensation or other relief if any are the petitioner's entitled?
(2.) Presently in the appeal, legality and validity of the findings recorded under issues No. 1 and 9 only have been challenged. Under issue No. 1, the Court below has found that 12.89 Acres of land is in possession of the appellant instead of 11.206 Acres as was found by the Officer, therefore, the respondents are entitled to receive compensation for an area of 12.89 Acres. Under issue No. 9, the evidence led by the claimants/respondents was rejected but the compensation was enhanced on the basis of sale-deed dated 24th July, 1968 executed by Chaudhary Shyam Sunder in favour of Ashfaq Hussain in respect of 30 square yard (Imaarti) for a sum of Rs. 1000/-. The trial Court has held that square yard mentioned in sale-deed is in terms of Imaarti square yard. In Immarti square yard, there are 33 inches while in standard yard, there are 36 inches. If an area is converted in standard square yard, the selling rate under the said sale-deed comes to Rs. 40/- per square yard. On that hypothesis, the Court below has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard payable to the claimants/ respondents.
(3.) Heard Shri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shesh Kumar and Shri Ritesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. The respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have given rise the following two questions for determination in the present appeal. (1) What is the area of land actually in possession of the appellant for which they are liable to pay compensation to the contesting-respondents herein? (2) Whether the Court below was justified in fixing market value of the land so acquired at the rate of Rs. 40/ - per square yard?;