HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-9
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
December 09,2016
HARI SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SIMRAT KAUR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]MANINDRA LAND AND BUILDING CORPORATION LTD VS. BHUTNATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. MOHINDRA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
LALA MATA DIN VS. A NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER SINGH VS. SANTA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MEWA RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RUP DIAMONDS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
R K SABHARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VIRPAL SINGH CHAUHAN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUBE RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. S M KOTRAYYA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER PAL AND ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHLAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. SHYAMLAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED TO]
P RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. LIPOK A O [REFERRED TO]
POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
D GOPINATHAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL VS. EXE ENG JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL VS. VEENA ALIAS BHARTI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
MANIBEN DEVRAJ SHAH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHAN MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
BASAWARAJ VS. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
ESHA BHATTACHARJEE VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY [REFERRED TO]
MANOHARAN VS. SIVARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants was heard at length on 24.11.2016 on the delay condonation applications and the order was reserved after noting the submissions in the
leading First Appeal Defective No.126 of 2016, as under:
"Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants on applications for Leave to Appeal and delay condonation application .
These defective first appeals without certified copy of the impugned judgment, have been filed beyond limitation with applications for leave to appeal and delay condonation applications as under:
![]()
JUDGEMENT_9_LAWS(ALL)12_2016.jpg
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Court should take a liberal view for condonation of delay, even of a period of more than 27 years, for reason that the first appeal involves question of right of the applicants to receive compensation as has been granted to others by virtue of decisions of this Court. He submits that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 protects the right of the tenure holders to obtain similar compensation as has been granted in the case of similarly situated other tenure holders. He submits that a liberal view should be adopted for condonation of delay. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (D) Tr. Vs. Haryana State in Civil Appeal No. 6599-6601 of 2014 decided on 21.07.2014 (paras 6, 8, 10 and 11), Imrat Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Collector in Civil Appeal No. 10799 of 2013 decided on 29.11.2013 (para 11), Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan and others 2014 (122) RD 285 (para 13), N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222, Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and others AIR 2002 SC 1201 (para 11) and Nand Kishore Vs. State of Punjab 1995 (6) SCC 614.
He submits that although in Mafatlal Industries Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others (1997) 5 SCC 536 (paras 79 and 80) it has been held that one of the important principles of law, based upon public policy, is the sanctity attaching to the finality of any proceeding, be it a suit or any other proceeding. Yet this judgment is not applicable in the present set of facts as the judgment relates to Central Excise matter.
Order reserved."
(2.)FACTS OF THE CASE:- Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') issued on 22.09.1979 and published in the official gazette of the State of U.P. on 10.11.1979, certain land for construction of Main Nala in NOIDA area of village Shahadara, Tehsil Dadri was acquired. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.03.1980 which was published in the official gazette on 10.05.1980. Possession of the land was taken on 15.12.1980. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 21.01.1982 offering compensation @ Rs.4086.02 per bigha besides solatium and interest etc. as against the claimed compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the award of the S.L.A.O., various references were made at the instance of the tenure holders under Section 18 of the Act being L.A.R. Nos.195, 197, 203 & 204, all of 1982. All the aforesaid Land Acquisition References including some other references were decided by the impugned common judgment dated 06.02.1988 passed by the court of 5th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied by the appellant on 09.02.1988, which was ready on 03.03.1988 and the same was received on 04.04.1988 as is evident from the photostat copy filed along with the appeal. However, instead of filing certified copy of the impugned common judgment, the appellants have filed an application for grant of three months' time to file certified copy of the impugned common judgment, which has not been filed as yet despite lapse of more than seven months.
(3.)By the impugned common judgment, the reference court enhanced the compensation and determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,000/- per bigha. It also awarded additional compensation under Section 23(1-A), solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% till 14.12.1981 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of the enhanced amount.
"Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants on applications for Leave to Appeal and delay condonation application .
These defective first appeals without certified copy of the impugned judgment, have been filed beyond limitation with applications for leave to appeal and delay condonation applications as under:
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Court should take a liberal view for condonation of delay, even of a period of more than 27 years, for reason that the first appeal involves question of right of the applicants to receive compensation as has been granted to others by virtue of decisions of this Court. He submits that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 protects the right of the tenure holders to obtain similar compensation as has been granted in the case of similarly situated other tenure holders. He submits that a liberal view should be adopted for condonation of delay. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (D) Tr. Vs. Haryana State in Civil Appeal No. 6599-6601 of 2014 decided on 21.07.2014 (paras 6, 8, 10 and 11), Imrat Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Collector in Civil Appeal No. 10799 of 2013 decided on 29.11.2013 (para 11), Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan and others 2014 (122) RD 285 (para 13), N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222, Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and others AIR 2002 SC 1201 (para 11) and Nand Kishore Vs. State of Punjab 1995 (6) SCC 614.
He submits that although in Mafatlal Industries Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others (1997) 5 SCC 536 (paras 79 and 80) it has been held that one of the important principles of law, based upon public policy, is the sanctity attaching to the finality of any proceeding, be it a suit or any other proceeding. Yet this judgment is not applicable in the present set of facts as the judgment relates to Central Excise matter.
Order reserved."
(2.)FACTS OF THE CASE:- Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') issued on 22.09.1979 and published in the official gazette of the State of U.P. on 10.11.1979, certain land for construction of Main Nala in NOIDA area of village Shahadara, Tehsil Dadri was acquired. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.03.1980 which was published in the official gazette on 10.05.1980. Possession of the land was taken on 15.12.1980. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 21.01.1982 offering compensation @ Rs.4086.02 per bigha besides solatium and interest etc. as against the claimed compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the award of the S.L.A.O., various references were made at the instance of the tenure holders under Section 18 of the Act being L.A.R. Nos.195, 197, 203 & 204, all of 1982. All the aforesaid Land Acquisition References including some other references were decided by the impugned common judgment dated 06.02.1988 passed by the court of 5th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied by the appellant on 09.02.1988, which was ready on 03.03.1988 and the same was received on 04.04.1988 as is evident from the photostat copy filed along with the appeal. However, instead of filing certified copy of the impugned common judgment, the appellants have filed an application for grant of three months' time to file certified copy of the impugned common judgment, which has not been filed as yet despite lapse of more than seven months.
(3.)By the impugned common judgment, the reference court enhanced the compensation and determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,000/- per bigha. It also awarded additional compensation under Section 23(1-A), solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% till 14.12.1981 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of the enhanced amount.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.