SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Brahma Deo
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh
C.A.No.1174 of 1999
(B. P. Singh and B. N. Srikrishna JJ.)
02.09.2004
JUDGMENT
B. P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal by the special leave is directed against the judgment and order
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 13th July, 1998 in First
Appeal No.671 of 1993. By its impugned judgment and order the High Court
modified the judgment and decree of the VIII Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Varanasi dated 31st July, 1989 in L.A. Reference No.331/1988 and reduced
the compensation granted to the appellant under the Land Acquisition Act ('the
Act' for short) from Rs.15, 000/- per biswa to Rs.10, 000/- per biswa.
2. We may notice only the relevant facts.
3. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 10th January,
1987, lands, admeasuring 1 bigha 15 biswas and 4 dhoors, belonging to the
appellant were notified for acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector granted
a compensation @ Rs.30, 952.37p. per bigha. Upon reference under Section 18 of
the Act, the learned VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi
enhanced the compensation to Rs.15, 000/- per biswa. It is not disputed before
us that 20 biswas make one bigha. The lands in question have been acquired for
'Bhadohi Rajwaha', which is a Canal Scheme. By the impugned order the High
Court held that the learned Judge, while disposing of the reference under
Section 18 of the Act, committed an error in considering the Award in LAR
172/86 for the reason that a certified copy of that judgment had not been filed
before the Court. It further observed that the only evidence before the Court
was, the judgment in LAR 34/89 which had awarded compensation @ Rs.10, 000/-
per bigha. The High Court, therefore, reduced the compensation payable to the
appellant from Rs.15, 000/- per biswa to Rs.10, 000/- per biswa.
4. It is not disputed before us that the lands in LAR 34/89, LAR 172/86 and in
the instant case, i.e., LAR 331/88 are all comprised within the same village.
The land, which was subject matter of LAR 34/89, was acquired by notification
issued under Section 4 of the Act on 25.8.1987 for the purpose of construction
of a bye-pass, whereas the land subject matter of LAR 172/86 was acquired
pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 11.2.1982 for
the same purpose as in instant case, i.e., for the 'Bhadohi Rajwaha'. In the
case in hand, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
10.1.1987.
5. When the reference under Section 18 of the Act was being considered by the
learned VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi, the judgment in LAR
34/89 dated 31.5.1989 was brought to his notice. From that judgment it appears
that compensation @ Rs.10, 000/- per biswa only had been awarded. That
judgment, however, noticed an earlier judgment in LAR 172/86 dated 27.11.1987
wherein compensation was awarded for similar lands @ Rs.15, 000/- per biswa.
The learned VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi, while disposing
of LAR 331/88 (the instant case), noticed the judgment in LAR 34/89 that for
similar lands acquired under the Act, which were subject matter of LAR 172/86,
a higher compensation @ Rs.15, 000/- per biswa was awarded. The learned VIII
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi also noticed from a perusal of
the judgment in LAR 34/89 that it did not show on what basis or for what
reasons, the value of the acquired lands, subject matter of that reference, the
compensation was determined at a lower rate than the lands, subject matter of
LAR 172/86. He however, preferred to follow the Award in LAR 172/86 finding
that the lands in question were comparable to the lands, which were subject
matter of LAR 172/86, and that both had been acquired for the same purpose,
though Section 4 notification in the former case was published in February,
1982 while in the latter case in January, 1987.
6. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in modifying the
Award of the Reference Court on a technical ground that the judgment in LAR
172/86 was not evidence in the case for the reason that its certified copy had
not been filed before the Court. The fact which the High Court missed is that
the certified copy of the judgment in LAR 34/89 was on record which referred to
the judgment in LAR 172/86. The facts of LAR 172/86 were, therefore,
incorporated to some extent in the judgment in LAR 34/89. It would be hyper
technical to assume that though the Court was entitled to consider the judgment
in LAR 34/89 and take notice of the facts which related to that particular
reference, it could not take notice of the facts noticed in that judgment which
had reference to another case being LAR 172/86. The fact that in LAR 172/86
higher compensation @ Rs.15, 000/- per biswa had been awarded was certainly
proved by filing of the judgment in LAR 34/89 which recorded this fact. No
doubt, disagreeing with the finding in the earlier case, a lower compensation @
Rs.10, 000/- per biswa only had been awarded in LAR 34/89.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the
view taken by the High Court is not justified and it has resulted in
miscarriage of justice. The lands, which are subject matter of the instant
case, were acquired 5 years after the lands acquired in LAR 172/86. The lands
in both the cases are within the same village and have been acquired for the
same purpose. If at all, the appellants could have claimed a higher
compensation on the ground that the acquisition in their case was 5 years
later, and the price of the land must have escalated during this period. Even
if we take the Award in LAR 34/89 as the basis, which awarded compensation @
Rs.10, 000/- per biswa, having regard to the fact that the lands in the instant
case were notified for acquisition five years later, and taking notice of the escalation
of price of land the rate of Rs.15, 000/- per acre does not appear to be
unreasonable.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the High
Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of the VIII Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 31st July, 1989 in L.A.R.No.331/88 restored.
No costs.
The appeal is allowed with no costs in terms of the signed order.