AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri L.K. Singh, and learned Counsel for the claimant-Respondents.
This appeal has been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short UPSIDC) against the judgment, order and award of reference court.
The land was acquired by the State of U.P. for the benefit of the UPSIDC vide notification dated 17.3.1997 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was made on behalf of the Collector on 15.5.1998 against which references u/s 18 of the Act preferred wherein compensation on the basis of the exemplar sale deed dated 10.6.1997 at the rate of Rs. 3, 70,000/-per bigha was determined and after applying deduction of 45% compensation at the rate of Rs. 2, 03,500/-per bigha along with other statutory benefits has been awarded.
The submission of Sri Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Appellant is that in the present case a much higher rate of deduction ought to have been made as the land in question is situate much interior to the main road.
Learned Counsel for the claimant-Respondents submitted that in respect of same scheme, award of compensation by the reference court in several other references on the basis of same exemplar has been upheld by this Court and the appeals of the UPSIDC have been dismissed.
Generally, in determining compensation after choosing the best exemplar, deduction of 1/3rd is applied. However, in the present case deduction of 45% has already been made from the rate determined on the basis of best exemplar so chosen.
A Division Bench of this Court in large number of appeals arising from the same acquisition has already held that the rate of compensation which has been fixed after deduction at the rate of 40% to 45% cannot be faulted with and there is no scope for any interference. Two such judgments, one dated 16.2.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 468 of 2002 UPSIDC v. Brij Bhushan Singh and another dated 19.4.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 131 of 2002 UPSIDC v. Ram Naresh and others have been produced before me.
In view of above decisions, I do not consider that there is any scope of more than 45% deduction from the market value determined on the basis of the exemplar. Award of compensation by the reference court is just and proper which requires no interference.
Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.