- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 96, C. P. C. has been filed by the land owner of plot No. 282 area 0. 78 acres situate in village Bhainsee, Tehsil and District Mathura. The State Government acquired the said plot for the purposes of Industrial Development Corporation. A sum of Rs. 1,392. 59 was awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant alongwith Smt. Sharda Devi filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for reference claiming Rs. 78,000/- as compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 Lakh per acre. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on February 5, 1977. It was followed by notification dated 7th of February, 1977 published under Section 6 of the Act. Possession of the acquired land was taken on May 13, 1977. Evidences documentary and oral were led by the parties before the Reference Court. The Reference Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues : (1) Whether the applicant Mahendra Kumar is entitled to recover compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 Lakh per acre, as claimed? (2) Whether the applicant is barred from claiming any amount of compensation in excess of what he had claimed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer?
(2.) UNDER issue No. 1 it was found that the applicant is entitled to claim compensation at Rs. 10,000/- for the land acquired. However, the reference was rejected in view of its finding recorded under issue No. 2. UNDER issue No. 2 it was found that in view of Section 25 (1) of the Act as then it stood, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation in excess of what he had claimed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The said finding was arrived at on the footing that the claimant appellant had not laid any claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming any higher amount of compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal is at the instance of the claimant. Before proceeding further it may be placed on record that the reference application was filed by the appellant jointly with Smt. Sharda Devi but subsequently, Smt. Sharda Devi surrendered her rights in favour of the present appellant. Heard ShriPrakash Gupta,learned Counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of contesting respondents No. 1 and 2. The State of U. P. through Collector, Mathura has been impleaded as respondent No. 2. But the learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no concern with the appeal as the appeal is to be contested by the respondent No. 1, U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur. While preparing the judgment it was noticed by me from the material on record that there is some discrepancy regarding the area of the acquired land. Copy of the award has not been filed in the paper book. It appears that in the reference application a grievance was also raised by the appellant that he is the owner of 0. 78 acres of plot No. 282 and it has been wrongly decreased to 0. 74 acres without any rhyme or reason as evident from the reference application filed before the Collector, Mathura, vide para 2. However, neither any issue was pressed nor any finding was recorded with regard to the extent of area of plot No. 282 acquired by the State Government. The reference Court without adverting to the question of extent of area of plot No. 282, has proceeded to decide the reference application straight way although in the opening part of the judgment it has been mentioned that the disputed area is 0. 78 acres. ShriPrakash Gupta,the learned Counsel for the appellant also gave an impression to this Court that the area of the land acquired is 0. 78 acres. Since this point was not agitated or pressed before the reference Court, it is not necessary to dilate further on this point. Taking the issue No. 1 as first, it may be noted that a sum of Rs. 1,392. 59 was determined by the District Land Acquisition Officer as compensation payable to the appellant. The reference Court under issue No. 1 has found that this very land was purchased for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant alongwith Smt. Sharda Devi by means of a registered sale deed dated 24th of February, 1976 i. e. before the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The relevant notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 5th of February, 1977. It has been found that there is no evidence to show on behalf of the respondents that price mentioned in the sale deed dated 24th of February, 1976, Ext. 4 in favour of the appellant is inflated or so much price was not paid to the vendor Lajji. In other words, the sale deed dated 24th of February, 1976 was found by the reference Court, in absence of any evidence to the contrary as genuine transaction. The reference Court, thus, concluded, and in my view rightly, that the appellant should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the land and the compensation awarded by the District Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The said finding of the reference Court is well considered finding.
(3.) HOWEVER, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that compensation should have been awarded more i. e. at the rate of Rs. 1 Lakh per acre. It was argued that the appellant has taken the land after its acquisition by the respondents at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. for installing petrol pump. To this extent there is no dispute. The opp. party No. 1, V. K. Agrawal, has admitted in his cross- examination that a part of the land acquired has been given to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. The defence set up by the respondent is that after acquiring the land huge amount was invested in its development and thereafter a small parcel thereof was given to the appellant. HOWEVER, there is no material on record to show what amount was spent by the respondents in the development. But this subsequent grant of part of land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. to the appellant by the respondent is no germane for the purposes of determination of the market value of the land on the date of relevant notification i. e. 5th of February, 1977. The reference Court has rightly taken into consideration that a judicial notice be taken of the fact that UPSIDC, respondent No. 1, allots land in small plots to the individuals after making necessary developments so that industrial units may have proper roads for transportation. It also provides water and electricity connections. in this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court rightly discarded the subsequent allotment of small piece of land to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. , specially in view of the fact that the appellant himself has purchased the land about a year before of the relevant notification. In the case on hand the sale deed standing in favour of the appellant, in absence of any material that the price mentioned therein was inflated or towards the lower side, itself is the best exemplar for determining the market value of the land on the date of relevant notification. There is no evidence to show any escalation of price in between the date of the sale deed standing in favour of the appellant and of the date of relevant notification. The finding recorded by the Reference Court on issue No. 1 is, therefore, hereby confirmed and needs no interference. Coming to the issue No. 2, the reference Court on the basis of the unamended Section 25 of the Act (as it stood prior to the amendment by Act No. 68 of 1984 which came into effect from 24th of September, 1984) held that the claimant is not entitled for any additional amount of compensation as determined by the authority concerned as he failed to make any claim for enhancement before the authority concerned.;