- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This common judgment disposes of this appeal as well as First Appeal No. 573 of 1993, State of UP and another v. Rajendra Singh and others, First Appeal No. 574 of 1993, State of UP and another v. Smt. Gayatri Devi, and First Appeal No. 575 of 1993, State of UP. and another v. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, which were disposed of by a common judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 68 of 1993, 69 of 1993. 70 of 1993 and 71 of 1993, by Shri Rameshwar Singh, Xth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr treating Land Reference No. 68 of 1993 as t he leading case, which has given rise to the present First Appeals, as in all these ap peals common questions of law and facts are involved.
(2.) AT the very outset it may be men tioned that this is a case where the com pensation has been increased more than 6-1/2 times by the learned Additional Dis trict Judge inasmuch as it has been en hanced from Rs. 44, 500/- per bigha to Rs. 2, 70, 00/ -. It is an amazingly sky rocketting. It appears that at the request of Appellant No. 2 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Siana, the Collector Bulandshahr acquired the following lands: - Village Plot Nos. Area Siana 4'30 Bigha Biswa Biswa nsi 1012 10150 10160 101 The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 27-4-1989. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30-11-1989. The possession of the lands was taken on 20-1-1992. The award was given by the Special Land Acquisition Of ficer on 20-1-1992. The purpose for ac quisition of the land was for constructing market yard of the Samiti. Special Land Acquisition Officer, after examining the spot and considering 135 sale deeds ex ecuted within three years, determined the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 44, 500 per bigha for the land measuring 33 big has and 1 biswa and awarded Rs. 14, 70, 725/ -. It appears that for the remain ing 3 big has and 3 biswas the compensa tion was awarded at the rate of Rs. 23, 812. 59 per bigha and determined the compensation of Rs. 75, 009. 38 p. He also determined and awarded Rs. 2, 4007-towards compensation for trees. The Spe cial Land Acquisition Officer (S. L. A. O.) followed the belt system as it appears while granting compensation the land was divided in to two categories. The total com pensation awarded was Rs. 15, 48, 134. 38. The S. L. A. O. also granted other benefits available i. e. solatium etc. under the Act of 1894. Il appears that the affected persons i. e. tenure holders whose land has been acquired were not satisfied and they filed reference before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensa tion at the rate of Rs. 1, 230 and Rs. 6007-per square yard respectively of different belts on the ground that they were granted not fair compensation. Their grievance was that rate of compensation should not be less than Rs. l, 260/-per square yard. They also averred that the acquired land was surrounded by developed colonies and adjoins G. T. Road. The names of developed colonies are Palak Vihar, Sushila Vihar and Ganpati Vihar. Learned Xth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr relied upon exemplar sale deed dated 30-11-1989 (paper No. 14/3-C) under which the plot in the aforesaid sale deed was sold for Rs. 62, 000/- and rate was fixed @ Rs. 400/- per square yard. The reasoning given in para graph No. 13 of the judgment are that the has already given in connected land refer ence Nos. 480 of 1991, 481 of 1992, 481 of 1991, and 563 of 1991 the rate of Rs. 400/-per square yard. He was also of the view that the appellant placed on record the circle rate which fixed the price of Rs. 400/-per square yard. It appears that he was also swayed by the instruction that the Govern ment vide Government Order dated 4-6-1988 has disallowed the deduction of 25% if the land is less than 8 acres in area and was of the view that since it is surrounded by the developed colonies and adjoining to G. T Road so the fair compensation would be Rs. 400/- per square yard. He also gave compensation regarding the foundation and boundary, which affected parties has raised on the land, as mentioned in the judgment. Special Land Acquisition Officer based his finding on various sale deeds and relied upon sale deed dated 28-4-1987 ex ecuted by Netra Pal in respect of plot Nos. 1035 and 1036 by means of which 12- 1/2 biswas land of plot No. 1035 was sold for Rs. 20, 000/- and determined the compen sation at the rate of Rs. 44, 500/- per bigha. There is also reference of sale of 1 bigha and 11 biswas for Rs. 55, 000/- at the rate of Rs. 35, 483/- per bigha and 2 bighas and 2 biswas and 5 biswansi was sold for Rs. 31, 000 on 10-4- 1989, 3 bighas 4 biswas and 10 biswansi was sold on 21-5-1989 out of plot No. 1439 for Rs. 30, 339 per bigha. Only few transactions are mentioned and there is no need of multiplication as main foundation was sale of 12- 1/2 biswas of plot Nos. 1035 and 1036 dated 28-4-1987. These appeals were earlier filed by the State Government alone. The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Siana filed an impalement application which was allowed vide order dated 16-6-1996. By order dated 23-9-96 it was transposed as appellant No. 2. As the correctness of the aforesaid or ders was not challenged by the respon dents either before the Supreme Court or before this Court, they have become final.
(3.) SRI V. D. Mandhyan, learned Coun sel for the appellants contends as fol lows: - (i) The learned District Judge has not issued any notice regarding reference. The mat ter has been decided by the learned Additional District Judge within one month and six days from the date of reference, not on merits but on extraneous considerations. Fair and reasonable opportunity has not been given which is against the spirit of Section 52 of the Act. He relied upon several judgments of the apex Court which will be referred to later on. (ii) The compensation cannot be deter mined on per square yard basis when larger area was subject- matter of acquisition. (iii) He also presses the application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC for taking additional evidence and submits that these cases be remanded in fairness to all. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant No. 1 contends as follows: (i) The impalement of the acquiring body was necessary under reference. (ii) The documentary evidence adduced by the claimants were in regard to different place and different part of the land and could not be basis for enhanced compensation. (iii) The reference was barred by time.;