(1) First Appeal No. 282 of 2001 v. RamSwaroop Maheshwari

(3) First Appeal No. 66 of 2002 (Old No. 234 of 1991) The State of U.P. through Collector, Saharanpur. .......... Defendant/appellant. Versus Sri Madan Lal Son of Late Chokhta Mal R/o 352 Brahmpuri, Meerut. ........ Claimant/Respondent. (4) First Appeal No. 73 of 2002 (Old No. 707 of 1991)

1. RamSwaroop Maheshwari 2. Hari Prakash Maheshwari Sons of Amba Prasad Maheshwari. 3. Smt. Shanta Lahoti wife of Shri N.K. Lahoti All the resident of Har-ki-Pauri, Haridwar, District (cid:150) Saharanpur. ................ Claimant/appellants Versus

1. The Collector, Saharanpur, 2. Superintendent of Works D.C.U., P.W.D. Haridwar, District Saharanpur. .......... Defendant/respondents (5) First Appeal No. 71 of 2002 (Old No. 367 of 1992)

1. Ram Swaroop Maheshwari 2. Hari Prakash Maheshwari Both sons of late Seth Amba Prasad Maheshwari. 3. Smt. Shanta Lohati Daughter of late Seth Amba Prasad Maheshwari, All residents of Vishwa Shanti Grih, Har-ki-Pauri, Haridwar, ................ Claimants/Appellants Versus

1. Collector, Saharanpur, 2. Superintendent of Works, Departmental Construction Unit, P.W.D., Haridwar. ......... .. Opp.parties/Respondents (6) First Appeal No. 70 of 2002 (Old No. 454 of 1992)

1. Dr. Man Mohan Nath son of Seth Prithvi Nath, 2. Seth Chander Shekhar son of Seth Baikunth Nath Both residents of Civil Line, Shiva Ji Road, Meerut. .............. Appellants. Versus

1. The Collector, Saharanpur. 2. Superintendent of Works, P.W.D., Haridwar. .......... Respondents. (7) First Appeal No. 74 of 2002 (Old No. 141 of 1991) Madan Lal Son of late Sri Chokha Mal, Resident of 352, Brahmapuri, Meerit. .......... Claimant/Appellant. Versus Collector, Saharanpur. .......... Defendant/respondent. (8) First Appeal No. 67 of 2002 (Old No. 61 of 1991)

1. State of U.P. through Collector, Saharanpur, 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Saharanpur. .......... Defendant/Appellant Versus Seth Prithvi Nath S/o Sri Gopinath, R/o Meerut City, District, Meerut. ............. Plaintiff/Respondent. Sri U.P.S.Negi, learned Addl.Advocate General for the State/appellant. Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Sri R.C.Shukla, Sri Lokpal Singh, Sri R.C.Pandey and Sri S.K. Mandal for private respondents. Date: 10th July, 2006 Hon(cid:146)ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon(cid:146)ble B.S. Verma, J. First appeal No.282 of 2001, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against judgment/award dated 18.09.1991 passed by IV Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.83 of 1989, whereby the reference made by the Collector, Saharanpur under Section 18 of the Act was allowed and the claimants were held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.390/- per sq. feet for the acquired land alongwith 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of taking possession by the department till the date of payment.

1.2. First appeal No.63 of 2002, preferred under Section 54 of the Act, is directed against judgment/award dated 09.12.1991 passed by VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.39 of 1988, whereby the reference made by the Collector, Saharanpur under Section 18 of the Act was allowed and the claimants were held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq. feet for the acquired land alongwith 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment on the increased amount.

1.3. First appeal No.66 of 2002, preferred under Section 54 of the act, is directed against judgment/award dated 17.01.1991 passed by VI Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.98 of 1988, whereby the reference made by the Collector, Saharanpur under Section 18 of the Act was allowed and the claimant was held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.390/- per sq. feet for the acquired land alongwith 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment.

1.4. First appeal No. 73 of 2002 preferred under Section 54 of the Act, is directed against judgment/award dated 18.09.1991 passed by IV Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.83 of 1989 by the claimant/appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

1.5. First appeal No.71 of 2002, preferred under Section 54 of the Act, is directed against judgment/award dated 03.4.1989 passed by the II Addl.District Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.94 of 1987 by the claimant/appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

1.6. First appeal No.70 of 2002, preferred under Section 54 of the Act, is directed against judgment/award dated 22.04.1992 passed by the III Addl.District Judge Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.235 of 1988 by the claimant/appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

1.7. First appeal No.74 of 2002, preferred under Section 54 of the Act, is directed against judgment/award dated 17.01.1991 passed by the VI Addl.District Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.98 of 1988 by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

1.8. First appeal No.67 of 2002, preferred under Section 54 of the Act, is directed against judgment/award dated 28.08.1990 passed by VII Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.01 of 1989, whereby the reference made by the Collector, Saharanpur under Section 18 of the Act was allowed and the claimant was held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq. feet for the acquired land alongwith 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment on the increased amount.

2. The facts and the issue involved in all these cases are similar, therefore all these appeals are being decided by this common order.

3. In all these cases for the planned development of Hardwar, the Public Works Department sought for acquisition of land in front of Har-ki-Pauri to widen the roads and for Car parking. Notification under Section 4 (1) followed by notification under Section 6(1) of the Act had been published in each case. Upon hearing the objections of the claimants the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation in each case. the claimants in each case felt aggrieved against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, moved application under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector, Saharanpur for sending the reference to the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is not adequate. The reference court after perusing the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion and enhanced the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in each case as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved, the State Government as well as claimants have come in separate appeals in each case.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the cases. The learned Addl. Advocate General contended that the rate fixed by the reference court in each case for the land acquired is excessive. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the acquired land was not assessed properly and the rate fixed in each case is inadequate. We have gone through the findings recorded in the judgments by the reference court. the reference court in each case has recorded finding that the location of Har-ki-Pauri is so important that naturally it must be costly place than any other place of the city. This fact can very well be appreciated in the background that as back as in 1936 the land from the same spot fetched compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq.ft. Much water has flown and the crowd at the place is increasing by leaps and bounds. The reference courts were right to hold that the rates fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in these cases were not the real rates of the land. We are in agreement with the finding recorded by the reference courts regarding the rates of the land acquired. The contention made by the learned Additional Advocate General has no force and is rejected.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State further contended that the interest should have been awarded to the claimants from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not from the date of taking possession of the acquired land. In support of his contention he has placed reliance of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Versus DDA and others, reported in (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 79. We have gone through the facts of the aforesaid case. The facts of the aforesaid case are different to the facts of these case and no reliance can be placed on the said case law. In the aforesaid case the plot in dispute was not included in the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and after a lapse of certain period fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act had to be published by the appropriate authority. In the instant cases there is no pleading by either party that the possession of the land was taken over prior to the date of notification of Section 4(1) of the Act. The contention made on behalf of the State has also no force and is rejected. We find no error or perversity in the impugned orders and as such the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court.

6. In view of above, all the appeals filed by the State/appellant against the orders impugned are dismissed.

7. The appeals filed by the claimant(s) enhancement of the amount of compensation have no force and are also dismissed accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J.) (P.C. Verma,J.) 10.07.2006 10.07.2006 P. Singh