Mohtilal @ Murari Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajeev Sharma and Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, JJ.—In First Appeal No. 56 of 1999, vide order dated 10.10.2009, Hon''ble Senior Judge has ordered for laying/listing the matter before a Division Bench of which Hon''ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh is a Member, but subsequently, the same has been released by His Lordship and as such, the aforesaid appeals are listed for hearing before us today. These two appeals have been filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and order dated 4.5.1999 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Rai Bareli in Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1992 by which the Reference was partly allowed and it was directed that compensation @ Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. for town area and Rs. 80/- per sq. mtr. for the areas lying beyond town area limits of Unchahar, District Rai Bareli be paid together with 18% interest and Shri Motilal alias Murarilal and Morari Lal Monarka and their legal representatives have been denied the compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the legal heirs of Shri Motilal alias Murarilal, namely, Murarilal Monarka and Gopal Monarka preferred First Appeal No. 56 of 1999. During pendency of appeal, Gopal Murarika died. Therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record. The State of U.P. has also filed First Appeal No. 50 of 2000 against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.1999.

Admitted facts of the case are that 29 Bigha 4 Biswa and 11 Biswansi land was acquired for construction of Government Degree College in Unchahar, District Rae Bareli by the State of Uttar Pradesh through notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as Act for the sake of brevity] on 3.11.1988. Consequent notification u/s 6(1) of the Act was issued only on 1.11.1989. Urgency clause was also applied u/s 17 of the Act. In view of the Government Notification, the District Land Acquisition Officer has declared the Award on 16.9.1991 and possession of acquired land was also taken on 16.9.1991. The land owners claimed a family settlement on 10.11.1988, i.e. 7 days after notification dated 3.11.1988, regarding which a declaratory suit u/s 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has also been filed, which is pending, which relates to five plots out of the total acquired area. The appellants in First Appeal No. 56 of 1999 filed applications before the Additional District Judge u/s 18 of the Act. The Court below decided both the References, i.e. Reference related to Moti Lal Morarka and Suraj Mal Morarka by a common order dated 4.5.1999, which is impugned before us.

During pendency of First Appeal No. 56 of 1999, the appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code [C.M. Application No. 2 of 2003] for filing all documents relating to the disputed plots.

We have heard Mr. Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Saxena and Mr. Mohd. Adil Khan, learned Counsel for the respective parties on the aforesaid application. The grounds set-forth under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC are made out. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

Since the application has been allowed and documents are to be adjudicated, the Court below has to consider these documents by deciding Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1992 afresh.

It is noteworthy that the objections were filed before the Court below u/s 18 of the Act and not u/s 30 of the Act and as such, the trial Judge cannot travel beyond the scope of Section 18 of the Act. While allowing the documents, we rely upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Gopal Bindal and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, .

It is also necessary to mention here that the trial Judge has to re-frame the issues, as issue No. 2 has wrongly been framed under which it has to be determined whether Shri Motilal alias Murarilal and Morari Lal Monarka are entitled to receive compensation. While deciding the issues, the trial Court shall keep in mind that it has to decide application u/s 18 of the Act and not u/s 30 of the Act. While considering the effect of family settlement and pendency of declaratory Suit u/s 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the trial Court has to keep in mind that the jurisdiction of the Court under Land Acquisition Act is a special one and the same is strictly limited by the terms of Sections 18, 20 and 21 etc. and in accordance with the law propounded in the case of Pramatha Nath Malik v. Secretary of State, reported in AIR 1930 Privy Council page 64.

Before parting, it is necessary to mention here that the compensation should have been awarded not only in view of the Government Order dated 7.3.1987 but in view of the amended Government Order dated 14.5.1990, which cannot be overlooked either by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the trial Court. The compensation need not be paid on the basis of stamp duty but on the basis of market value at the time of acquisition. The Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and Another, , held that valuation register maintained for stamp duty purpose cannot be relied for determining market value of the property. Similarly, the exemplar of smaller plot cannot be relied upon when the land acquired is larger chunk of area regarding which the law has been specifically laid down by this Court in Moradabad Development Authority Vs. Chidda and Others, , and by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Zila Singh and others, reported in 2003 (10) SCC 166.

The genuineness of family settlement and pendency of declaratory Suit u/s 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has also to be determined by the trial Court in such a fashion that where there is dispute regarding title and also about apportionment of compensation amount, the Land Acquisition Officer has to make Reference u/s 18 read with Section 30 by holding the law laid down in Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni and Others Vs. State of A.P. and Others, .

In view of above observations, both the First Appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside. Under these circumstances, we have no option except to remand the matter to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh, in accordance with law. While allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, we have kept in mind that the factum of additional evidence has to be decided in view of the fact that it is necessary for deciding the dispute and for proper adjudication of appeal. In Smt. Sakuntala Chakraborty Vs. Shiba Prosad Roy and Another, , it has been held that the application for adducing the additional evidence in appeal should be heard alongwith appeal while assessing the evidence already on record and it cannot be ascertained by the Court whether additional evidence would be necessary or not for proper adjudication of appeal. In view of what has been stated above, both the First Appeals are allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.1999 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Court below for deciding the matter afresh, in accordance with law, within a maximum period of six months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, as the matter is lingering for the last two decades.