Full Judgment
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has acquired the land in village Ismaliganj, Pargana Tehsil and district Lucknow for Arjan Ram Sagar Misra Extension Scheme. For the purpose, the notices under Sections 4 and 6 were issued on 17.3.1979 and 20.5.1980 respectively. The land of the respondents were also acquired and possession was taken over on 7.8.1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award and estimated the cost at the rate of Rs. 1.88/- sq. ft. Not being satisfied, the respondents have filed the appeal before the Tribunal and demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. However, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- along with solatium and interest. Being aggrieved, U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has filed the present appeal.
2. With this background, Sri Madan Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that in determining the compensation the learned Tribunal has applied incorrect principle of law and has failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspect of the case and also has drawn a total wrong inference. He further submits that in calculating the market value, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the market value should be as it is on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and possession which was taken in the year 1981 and only when it is found contrary or against the provision, the reference can be accepted. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
3. On the other hand, Sri A.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has justified the impugned order.
4. I heard Sri Madan Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
5. Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property saved by the authority of law. In law, the property can be taken away at the market price. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithviraj Taneja v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 684 observed about the market value as follows:-
"The market value means the price that in willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property, having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value the disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded.
There is an element of guess work inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. But this in the very nature of things cannot be helped. The essential thing is to keep in view the relevant factors prescribed by the Act."
6. From the record, it appears that in the case of Sardar Yogendra Singh (First Appeals No. 15 and 16 of 1992) whose adjacent land was acquired by the same notification, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- and the same was upheld by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2009. Moreover, this Court in the Second Appeal No. 3536 of 1997 vide order dated 17th September, 1980 and in First Appeal No. 60 of 1984 vide order dated 14.7.2010 has approved the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft.
7. In view of above, by following the earlier order of this Hon'ble Court and on the basis of parity, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal where the award was enhanced to Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. for the land in question. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal where the compensation was awarded @ Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. along with the solatium and interest is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.
8. The appeals are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.