U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD v. ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & Ors.

Jagdish Chandra & Ors. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA & Anr. First Appeal No. 744 of 2001 decided on 14.12.2007 – referred to.

#4. In Pradeep Kumar, after remand, the High Court awarded Rs.297/- per square yard as the compensation in pursuance of notification dated 15.3.1988 of the land situated in Village Makanpur (Sr. No. 2 in the above table) for the benefit of Noida. This Court in Narendra awarded compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard for the land acquired in Village Makanpur in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act published on 12.9.1986 (Sr. No. 2 in the above table). Such land is in the area of Noida on the southern side of the National Highway. [Para 38][773-G-H]

#5. The other villages, subject matter of acquisition i.e. Arthla, Jhandapur, Prahladgarhi, Mahiuddin-Re-Kanawani and Sahibabad are farther away from the National Highway than the land situated in Village Makanpur. Since the Special Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Reference Court has determined uniform compensation for the entire land acquired, therefore, the compensation awarded of land situated in Village Makanpur on the basis of notification 4-5 years later is not a reasonable yardstick for determining compensation of over 1100 acres of land in the other villages. There is no judicial precedent in respect of land situated in other five villages which are subject matter of the acquisition in the present group of appeals. The orders passed by this Court relied upon are either subsequent to the notification in question and/or for the acquisition for the purpose of planned development of Noida. [Para 39][774-A-C]

#6. A compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was awarded for land acquired for the purpose of GDA vide notification dated 28.2.1987 and 16.8.1988 (Sr. No. 4 & 5 in the above table). The said acquisition was five years after the acquisition in question. The development activity initiated vide notification dated A B C D E F G H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

26.6.1982 would be relevant to determine the market value on account of acquisition by virtue of the subsequent notification, but time gap of more than five years will not entail the same amount of compensation in respect of the land acquired five years earlier. [Para 40][774-D-E]

#7. In respect of land situated on northern side of National Highway, the land was acquired vide notifications dated 28.2.1987 and 12.9.1986 in the case of Narendra and Kashi; and on 16.8.1988 in the case of Jai Prakash. Whereas, on the southern side of National Highway for the benefit of Noida, the land of Village Makanpur became subject matter of acquisition vide notification dated 10.3.1988 in the case of Pradeep Kumar and on 15.3.1988 in the case of Charan Kaur. [Para 42][774-G-H]

#8. For the land situated on the northern side of the National Highway for the benefit of the Parishad, the acquisition has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 4636 of 2016 on 28.3.2016. The compensation assessed in the other aforementioned cases is subsequent to the date of notification, therefore, none of the orders are determinative of the amount of compensation. Hence, the market value as determined by the High Court cannot be sustained either on the basis of the sale deeds, or on the strength of judicial orders. There is no justification of enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court i.e. Rs.120/- per square yard. [Para 43] [775-A-B] U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal & Ors. First Appeal No. 56 of 2005 decided on 21.7.2015; Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash First Appeal No. 827 of 2000 decided on 28.10.2015; Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam LKVikas Parishad & Anr. First Appeal No. 552 of 2001 decided on 16.12.2015; Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam VikasParishad & Anr. First Appeal No. 412 of 2001 decided on 1.3.2016; Narendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 10429-10430 of 2017 decided on 11.09.2017; Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. (2016) 6 SCC 308; Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. v. Collector of Ranchi and Vice Versa (1972) 1 SCC 480 : [1972] 3 SCR 208; Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. v. U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS 755 Narottambhai Morarbhai & Anr., (1996) 11 SCC 159 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 199; Land Acquisition Officer v. B. Vijender Reddy & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 669; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 : [2005] 3 SCR 542; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 927; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 568 : [2007] 12 SCR 1120; Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer v. Shaik Azam Saheb & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 395 : [2009] 1 SCR 289; Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer (2009) 14 SCC 367 : [2009] 5 SCR 864l; Himmat Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2013) 16 SCC 392 – referred to. Case Law Reference (2016) 6 SCC 308 [1972] 3 SCR 208 referred to referred to [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 199 referred to (2001) 10 SCC 669 [2005] 3 SCR 542 [2008] 11 SCR 927 [2007] 12 SCR 1120 [2009] 1 SCR 289 [2009] 5 SCR 864 (2013) 16 SCC 392 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 15 Para 21 Para 21 Para 23 Para 24 Para 25 Para 26 Para 27 Para 30 Para 31 A B C D E F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2019 of the High Court G of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal No. 827 of 2000. With Civil Appeal Nos. 360, 340, 338, 361, 362, 348, 343, 382, 363, 381, 339, 349, 383, 350, 351, 352, 384, 341, 364, 353, 354, 385, 357, 365, 355, H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. A 366, 347, 342, 367, 358, 368, 356, 369, 344, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 345, 386, 346, 375, 376, 377, 387, 359, 378, 379 and 380 of 2021. Y. D. Sharma, P.N. Mishra, Ms.Meenakshi Arora, Pradeep Kant, Sukumar Patjoshi, Sr.Advs., R.K. Bali, Ms. Megha Bali, Amit Korpal, Atul Dewan, Ms.Deepkaran Dalal, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Syed Mehdi Imam, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Syed Mansoor Ali Rizvi, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Ms. Pushpa Kumari Mishra, Ms. Deepika Sharma, Kumar Gaurav, Ms. Mehrunnisa, Mohd. Ashraff, Uday Gupta, Ms. Shivani M. Lal, Kripa Shankar, M. K. Tripathi, Chand Qureshi, Ram Dutt Sharma, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Hiren Dasan, Vishwajit Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ms. Ridhima Singh, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Sushmit Chauhan, Ms. Akansha Singh, Pranav Raj Singh, Aneesh Mittal, Ms.Reeta Chaudhary, Divyanshu Sahay, Sunil Kumar Jain, Anil Kaushik, Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, K. S. Rana, Ahilesh Kalra, Divyanshu Sahay, Rohit Kumar Singh, R. Venkat Raman, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Ravindra Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Shailesh Upadhyaya, Chiranjeev Johri, K. S. Rana, Haraprasad Sahu, Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

#1. The present appeals arise out of an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 19.07.2019 whereby a compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was awarded for the land acquired in six villages apart from the statutory benefits. In the present set of 51 appeals, 38 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Prahlad Garhi; 2 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Jhandapur; 3 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Sahibabad; 2 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Jhandapur/ Sahibabad; 1 appeal pertains to land situated at Village Arthala and 5 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Makanpur.

#2. The appellant – U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad1 has been constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 19652. A notification was published on 26.06.1982 by the Parishad under Section 28 of the Act intending to acquire 1229.914 acres of land. Subsequently, a notification under Section 32 of the Act was 1 For Short, the ‘Parishad’ 2 For short the ‘Act’ B C D E F G H U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 757 published on 28.02.1987. Sections 28 and 32 of the Act are equivalent to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18943. A

#3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer announced an award on 27.02.1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 50/- per square yard in respect of land of all the six villages and compensation of Rs. 35/- per square yard was awarded in respect of land owners owning more than 8 acres. The area of the land for which the compensation was awarded in the six villages is as under: The remaining area measuring 72.019 acres was the land of the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, for which no compensation was awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.

#4. The land owners being aggrieved of the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer sought a Reference for determining the market value. The Learned Additional District Judge while deciding the Reference awarded Rs. 120/- per square yard as the compensation apart from the statutory benefits vide award dated 23.05.2000.

#5. The landowners as well as the Parishad filed appeals against the decision of the Reference Court. Such appeals were decided separately by the High Court in respect of land acquired by the above stated notification under Section 28 of the Act. The first appeal in U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal & Ors.4 filed by the Parishad in respect of land situated in Village Prahladgarhi was dismissed on 21.07.2015. The land owners have relied upon the following three sale deeds in appeal before the High Court to claim higher compensation: 3 For short, the ‘LA Act’ 4 First Appeal No. 56 of 2005 decided on 21.7.2015 B C D E F G H 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

#6. The High Court considering the three sale deeds held as under: “28. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also the factum that the court below has already applied deduction of 25%, we do not find any fault on the part of Reference Court in determining market value of acquired land at Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. It can neither be said to be excessive or unreasonable, nor it can be said that appropriate principles in determining market value have not been considered by court below. The two judgments cited by appellant do not help it in any manner since the principles laid down therein have already been noticed by court below. In these facts and circumstances, in our view, the aforesaid point for determination formulated above is answered in favour of respondents and against appellant.” 7. The compensation awarded @ Rs.120/- per square yard vide order dated 21.7.2015 attained finality when the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4636 of 2016 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jawahar Lal (D) through LRs & Ors.) filed by the Parishad was dismissed on 28.03.2016.

#8. Another appeal Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad & Anr.5 arising against the award of the Reference Court dated 23.5.2000 filed by the land owners in respect of land situated in Village Jhandapur was initially dismissed by the High Court on 16.12.2015. The land owners in the appeal relied upon the following sale deeds in support of their contention for determining the market value: 5 First Appeal No. 827 of 2000 decided on 28.10.2015 U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 759

#9. The sale deeds dated 13.1.1986 and 15.1.1986 were not relied upon by the High Court for the reason that such sale instances were of more than 3½ years after the publication of notification intending to acquire land. The High Court found that if the compensation has to be awarded on the basis of sale deeds dated 5.5.1982 and 8.6.1982, the compensation would be lower than what has been awarded by the Reference Court. The Court in its order dated 28.10.2015 held as under: “13. We find that reliance placed by appellants on the aforesaid sale deeds would not help claimants in any manner. In our view the court below has already been considerate enough in determining market value at Rs. 120/- per square yard else the aforesaid two sale deeds, if relied, would have cause in a lower market value. Before elaborating our aforesaid observation we find it appropriate to remind ourselves with principles laid down in last several decades on the question how market value of land acquired forcibly under provisions of Act, 1894 should be determined.”

#10. In Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr.6, the above order of the High Court was taken as the basis to determine the market value of land acquired in the said appeal. Another appeal by the land owners Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr.7 was decided on 01.03.2016, relying upon the earlier two orders.

#11. The aforesaid orders dated 28.10.2015; 16.12.2015 and 1.3.2016 were set aside by this Court on 9.11.2017 and the matters were remanded to the High Court vide the following order- “Leave granted. Learned counsel for the parties have filed certain documents along with the Special Leave Petitions. The said documents are taken on record, particularly the decision of this Court in SLP(C) Nos.1506-1517/2016, titled as Pradeep Kapoor vs. State of U.P. documents were not on record before the High Court. They are taken on record. These appeals are remitted back to the High Court for deciding afresh. A prayer is made for consideration of the aforesaid documents. It is open to the parties if they so desire 6 First Appeal No. 552 of 2001 decided on 16.12.2015 7 First Appeal No. 412 of 2001 decided on 1.3.2016 A B C D E F G H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G to adduce additional evidence, in that event, the High Court may ask Reference Court to record additional evidence and to record finding and then High Court may decide the appeals afresh. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are remitted to the High Court for being decided afresh in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.”

#12. The IA to produce additional documents as mentioned in the above order has been placed along with the written submissions by the land owners before this Court. Apart from the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the order of the Reference Court, various other judgments pertaining to different acquisitions were produced.

#13. The High Court thereafter decided the 53 appeals on 19.07.2019, awarding a sum of Rs. 297/- per square yard as compensation for acquiring the land of the six villages as mentioned in the notification. 51 appeals were preferred in respect of acquisition of land by the Parishad and the others are in respect of the acquisition by Ghaziabad Development Authority8. The High Court proceeded as if the notification for the acquisition for the Parishad and GDA is the same and for the same acquisition proceedings. The land acquired by the Parishad vide notification dated 26.06.1982 is the subject matter of the present appeals. It is pertinent to note that the said land is not for the benefit of the GDA. The High Court in the impugned judgment held as under: “Accordingly, we find that all the appellants in both the sets of first appeals are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard. We have mentioned in detail regarding the other similar cases where compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard even though there were gaps between the different notifications, but the villages are same. As discussed above, Narendra (supra) lays emphasis on fair compensation and on parity of compensation in respect of similarly situated land. A careful analysis of the said judgment clearly shows that gaps of a few years in the notifications have been ignored by the Supreme Court and this Court also in the subsequent judgment in First Appeal No. 522 of 2009, Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. We do not find any reason H 8 For short, ‘GDA’ U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 761 for not awarding compensation at the same rate. Accordingly, the orders of the Reference Court dated 13th April, 1998, 18th February, 2000, 23rd May, 2000, 29th March, 2001 and 02nd April, 2002, which are under challenge in the respective appeals, are set aside. The appellants are entitled to compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard along with other statutory benefits under the law which shall be calculated and paid to them expeditiously within six months from today.”

#14. The High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Narendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 9 wherein compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was provided in respect of acquisition by the State vide notification dated 12.9.1986 for the land situated in Village Makanpur for planned development of Vaishali. The High Court, in a judgment under appeal, had restricted the amount of compensation to the amount on which Court fees was affixed. This Court held as under: “16) Simply because the appellants had paid court fee on the claim at the rate of Rs.115/- square yards could not be the reason to deny the compensation at a higher rate. This could be taken care of by directing the appellants to pay the difference in court fee after calculating the same at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yards.”

#15. In another matter referred by the High Court, Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.10, this Court had remanded the appeals to the High Court on 16.2.2016 as it awarded Rs.135/- per square yard as compensation vide its order dated 15.4.2015. The appeals arose out of a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act published on 15.03.1988 for acquisition of land in Village Makanpur for planned industrial development at New Okhla Industrial Development Authority11 constituted under “The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976”. After remand by this Court, the High Court on 21.04.2016 awarded Rs. 297/- per square yard as the compensation for the land acquired.

#16. Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Parishad, argued that the High Court has ignored the date of notification i.e. 26.6.1982 by which the land in the present matter was acquired. In the matter of Pradeep Kumar, the notification was dated 15.03.1988 in 9 Civil Appeal Nos. 10429-10430 of 2017 decided on 11.09.2017 10 (2016) 6 SCC 308 11 For short, ‘Noida’ A B C D E F G H 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H respect of land located in village Makanpur at Noida. However, in the present matter, more than 1000 acres of land situated in five other villages is to be acquired. The land in district Ghaziabad sought to be acquired by the Parishad is on the northern side of the National Highway-24 which passes through Village Makanpur, whereas the land on the southern side of National Highway is a part of Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Noida is a well-developed town as compared to the developing town of Ghaziabad situated on the other side of the National Highway.

#17. Mr. Gupta, on the other hand, vehemently argued on behalf of the land owners that the land situated in Village Makanpur was the subject matter of acquisition for Noida as well as GDA apart from the Parishad. It was contended that the purpose for which the land is acquired or the authority which acquired the land is inconsequential as the land owners are entitled to compensation irrespective of any such factors. In the written submissions, reference has been made to the statement of Inderraj Singh (PW-1) to submit that at the time of acquisition, there were industrial units as well as residential colonies of Vaishali and Kaushambi. Reliance was placed upon finding of the Reference Court which is to the following effect: “10. From the above averments it is proved that the position and status of disputed acquired land is of high quality and these lands are of good potential with a view to productivity and other usages and is fit for residential and commercial capacity.”

#18. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the land owners, two maps have also been referred. First map is of Ghaziabad which is on the northern side of National Highway-24 and the second map is stated to be of an area now covered within the jurisdiction of Noida, i.e. in respect of Chalera Banger, Bhangel Begampur, Nagla Charandas, Tilpatabad, Kakrana Khawaspur. Such map submitted with the written submissions is not legible. It is submitted that the Village Makanpur is close to Delhi as compared to the above said villages which are now parts of Noida. It has been stated that a compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard has been awarded under the notification dated 19.12.1980 for the land situated in Village Makanpur, hence, the present land owners are also entitled to the same amount of compensation. As per the argument of Mr. Gupta, the land acquired is better located than the land which is the subject matter of acquisition for Noida. The distances of the villages presently under the jurisdiction of Noida and Ghaziabad from the borders U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.] 763 of Delhi have also been submitted before us. Though, such distances are not part of the pleadings or evidence before the Reference Court or the High Court, the said table has been reproduced hereunder: “There is no dispute that landowners of village across NH-24, examples of which were cited before this Court during the course of hearing have all been awarded compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard. The approximate distance to Delhi from the villages involved in the present case and those across NH-24 is as under: The above table would show that for villages which are at a distance of 13-14 km from Delhi, have been awarded compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard and therefore the respondents in the present case deserve compensation at least @ Rs.297/- per square yard, if not more.”

#19. In the written submissions submitted on behalf of Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the land owners, it is asserted that the State Government has decided that 731 acres of land would be carved out from the total land acquired in 1982 and handed over to the GDA. It is also submitted that a notification was issued under Section 4 of the LA Act on 28.2.1987 in respect of 731 acres of land. In the present set of appeals, we are not dealing with the acquisition of land intended to be acquired by way of a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act dated 28.2.1987. Mr. Singh in the written submissions has submitted that the possession was taken over by the GDA on 14.6.1988 and 29.6.1988 which was based upon development work taken place from 1982 onwards. We do not find such facts emanate from the orders passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court and the order of the High Court. The land acquired by the GDA is not part of determination of the compensation in the present set of appeals. A B C D E F G H 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

#20. The principles of determining the market value are delineated under Sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act and are well-settled by the plethora of judgments on the said subject matter. The provisions of the LA Act and some of the judgments are referred hereinafter- “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. – (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1); xx xx xx

#24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. – xx xx xx fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;”

#21. A three Judge Bench of this Court12 indicated methods of valuation to be adopted to ascertain the market value of land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) as: (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years’ purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.

#22. This Court13 held that the acid test which the court should always adopt in determining the market value in matters of compulsory acquisition is to eschew feats of imagination and sit in the armchair of a prudent willing purchaser. It was held as under: “6. No prudent purchaser would purchase large extent of land on the basis of sale of a small extent of land in the open market. The acid test the court should always adopt in determining market value in the matter of compulsory acquisition would be to eschew