Smt. Kalawati v. State of U.P. &
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50836-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 71) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49521 of 2014
Legal Reasoning
"... We are of the view that, having regard to the report which has been submitted by the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Naib Tehsildar on 21 May 2013 to the District Magistrate (Annexure 4), a fresh look in regard to the claim of the petitioner will be appropriate in the interest of justice. The relevant test for determining the nature of the land is the date of execution of the sale deed dated 18 December 2012 and not when the land was originally purchased by the petitioner. Notice would have to be taken of the fact that after the land was originally purchased by the petitioner, several changes may thereafter have occurred in the nature and possession of the land holding. Hence, particularly having regard to the representation which has been submitted by the petitioner, it is appropriate to direct that the basis on which the sale consideration was fixed should be revisited afresh. We, accordingly, dispose of the petition by directing the Collector, Lalitpur to reconsider the entire matter afresh. For this purpose, the petitioner may furnish a fresh representation within a period of one month from today together with a certified copy of this order before the second respondent. The second respondent, after hearing the petitioner, shall pass a suitable orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the acquiring body." 3. The order of the Court dated 17.4.2014 has become final between the parties. Thus, compensation was to be determined keeping in mind the directions issued therein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was abundant evidence on record to establish that the subject land was residential in character. He places reliance on a report dated 17.7.2014 by the Revenue Authorities wherein it is mentioned that several houses were in existence over adjoining plot no. 863 and few houses over plot no. 862/2. He also places reliance on the previous report of the Revenue Authorities dated 21.5.2013 and of which notice was taken in the previous writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the land in question has been rightly held to be agricultural. Since it is found to be situated in "Vishisth Gram", the circle rate prescribed at the relevant time for agricultural land situated over "other roads" was Rs. 3,50,000/- and which has been rightly applied. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The impugned order records that the subject land was situated over a kutcha road and at a distance of 100 meters from Gaiyya Ghat to Khiriyachattra pucca road. It is also admitted that adjoining plot no. 863 is the basti of Sehriya and Kushwaha and over which 50 residential houses were in existence. Plot nos. 862 and 863 are adjoining plots. In the second paragraph of the impugned order, the conclusion is that the land of the petitioner of arazi no. 862 and adjoining plot no. 863 were partly abadi but still compensation has been determined by treating the same as agricultural for which we find no justification. Even as per the findings returned in the impugned order the land was being used for non-agricultural purposes and had the potentiality, on the date of purchase, for being used for residential and non- agricultural purposes. Therefore, the compensation is liable to be paid treating it as non-agricultural. 8. It is noteworthy that according to the prescribed circle rate, the agricultural land situated in "Vishisth Gram" was to be valued at Rs. 3.50 lakhs in case the same was situated over "other roads/marg". In respect of non-agricultural land, the compensation is in different slabs. For land situated within a distance of 50 meters from "other roads" , the circle rate prescribed was Rs. 1,000/- per square meter and for land situated beyond 50 meters it was Rs. 800/- per square meter. 9. In the instant case, as per finding returned, the land was situated on kaccha marg and at a distance of 100 meters from 'pucca marg'. Thus, considering the land to be situated beyond 50 meters from other road/marg, the compensation would at least be Rs. 800/- per square meter. 10. Consequently, the determination of compensation made in the impugned order, even as per finding recorded therein, does not appear to be correct. 11. The impugned order to the extent it declines to treat the subject land as non- agricultural is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Lalitpur to calculate compensation by treating the subject land as non- agricultural. The said exercise shall be completed by the District Magistrate within eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. The differential amount shall be paid within four weeks thence.
Arguments
Petitioner :- Smt. Kalawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 5.8.2014 passed by Collector, Lalitpur whereby the representation of the petitioner in terms of order dated 17.4.2014 passed in previous writ petition of the petitioner being Writ C No. 22134 of 2014 has been decided. The District Magistrate has redetermined the circle rate applicable to the petitioners' land comprising of Arazi No. 862 area 0.551 hectares, Village Tikra Tiwari, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lalitpur as Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre and has awarded compensation at one and a half times i.e. at the rate of Rs. 5,25,000/- per acre. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had executed a sale deed dated 18.12.2012 in favour of the Irrigation Department as it was required for a public purpose i.e. construction of Kachanaud Dam. Therein the compensation payable to the petitioner was calculated considering the land to be agricultural. The petitioner being not satisfied with the compensation amount awarded to her in pursuance of the sale deed represented to the authorities to award compensation to her at a higher rate treating the land as abadi. The petitioner relied on a report of Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Naib Tehsildar dated 21.5.2013 wherein it was mentioned that the subject land was situated within 200 meters from the intersection of abadi and contiguous to a Kaccha marg. The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner has executed the sale deed voluntarily admitting the land to be agricultural. It resulted in filing of Writ C No. 22134 of 2014 (Smt. Kalawati vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others) by the petitioner. The same was disposed of by order dated 17.4.2014, the relevant part of which is extracted below:-
Decision
12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad