KIRAN TANDON Vs. ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1997 of Allahabad High Court by which two First Appeals preferred by Allahabad Development Authority were partly allowed and the award made by the Additional District Judge was modified.

(2.) At the instance of Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred as ADA) the State Government took steps to acquire property bearing No. 2 Circular Road, in the city of Allahabad having an area of about 4 bighas. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Gazette on 7-1-1987 and it was recited therein that the land is being acquired for a public purpose namely for construction of residential flats by ADA and in view of urgency, the provisions of Section 17 were being invoked. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as SLAO) made an award for the acquired land on 15-6-1987 and further directed that the compensation payable for the building and the trees standing thereon shall be determined subsequently after their valuation had been ascertained. The question of apportionment of the compensation for the acquired land was referred for determination by the Court in accordance with Section 30 of the Act. The ADA thereafter took possession of the land on 16-6-1987. It is the admitted case of the parties that the land in dispute, namely, 2 Circular Road was owned by the State Government which had been given on lease. According to the claimant Ravindra Kumar Tandon (husband of the appellant Smt. Kiran Tandon) the lease in his favour was to expire on 7-7-1987. The SLAO gave a supplementary award with regard to the building and the trees on 4-3-1989. In the awards the market value of the land was fixed as Rs. 72.50 per square yard, the value of the building (exclusive of land) at Rs. 3,48,000/- and the value of the trees as Rs. 23, 100/-. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him the claimant sought references to the Court which were made by the SLAO and accordingly three reference were registered, namely, reference No. 126 of 1987, No. 23 of 1988 and No. 34 of 1989. The references were decided by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad on 8-12-1992 by separate orders. The ADA then preferred two appeals namely, First Appeal No. 368 of 1994 and First Appeal No. 439 of 1994 before the High Court in which the State of U.P. was impleaded as proforma respondent No. 2 but subsequently it was transposed as appellant No. 2. The Addl. District Judge had held that the market value of the land was Rs. 500/- per square yard and that the claimant was entitled to the entire amount even though possession of the land was taken only 21 days before the expiry of the lease. He, further assessed the value of the building at Rs. 10,96,842/- and value of the trees at Rs. 50,000/-. The High Court upheld the finding of the Addl. District Judge regarding the market value of the land but directed that a deduction of 20 per cent should be made towards the cost of internal development which would be incurred by ADA. The High Court further held that in view of the fact that the claimant had only lease hold rights and the period of lease expired within a few days of taking over possession, the compensation amount with regard to the same had to be apportioned equally amongst the claimant and the State Government and therefore claimant was entitled to only 50 per cent of the compensation amount. It further held that the value of the building was Rs. 60,000/- and the value of trees was Rs. 23,000/-.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court the claimant as well as the ADA preferred special leave petitions in this Court. The special leave petition preferred by ADA was summarily dismissed without assigning any reason. After leave was granted in the special leave petitions filed by the claimant, the ADA preferred a review petition in which notice was issued on 3-8-1999. Having heard counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the special leave petition preferred by the ADA as discussed hereinafter. Accordingly review petition is allowed and leave is granted.