Case: Narendra  Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2. The award dated 18th January, 1990 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50 per square yard. The appellants as well as other villagers were not satisfied with the rates so fixed and, therefore, sought the reference under Section 18 of the Act. Matter was referred to the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for determination of market value of the acquired land. Reference court, vide its judgment and order dated 19th April, 1999, increased the rate of compensation from Rs. 50/per sq. yards to Rs. 90/per square yards. Even this increase in the compensation was not to the satisfaction of the land owners. Various appeals came to be filed. Appeals were also filed by these appellants claiming that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 115/per square yards. Some of the other land owners whose lands were acquired, however, had claimed higher compensation. The first batch of appeals filed by others was decided by the High Court by judgment dated 13th November, 2014. The High Court found merit in those appeals and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/per square yards. When the appeals of the appellants herein came up for hearing before the High Court, the High Court took note of its earlier judgment and accepted the fact that the land of the appellants was acquired by the same Notification vide which land of others was acquired wherein the High Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/per square yards. Notwithstanding the same, insofar as the appellants are concerned, the High Court has limited the compensation to Rs. 115/per square yards because of the reasoning that the appellant had demanded compensation at that rate only and had paid the court fees also accordingly. Therefore, opined the High Court, it was difficult to allow compensation at a rate higher than the rate claimed by the appellants.

Reasoning: It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same Notification.7. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those land owners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the Legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell of their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court etc. In order to ensure that the land owners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for `fair compensation. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners whose land was taken away by the same Notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them.8. No doubt the judicial system that prevails is based on adversarial form of adjudication. At the same time, recognising the demerits and limitations of adversarial litigation, elements of social context adjudication are brought into the decision making process, particularly, when it comes to administering justice to the marginalised section of the society.society.12. From the human rights perspective, persons belonging to the weaker sections are disadvantaged people who are unable to acquire and use their rights because of poverty, social or other constraints. They are not in a position to approach the courts even when their rights are violated; they are victimized or deprived of their legitimate due. Here lies the importance of access to justice for socially and economically disadvantaged people. When such people are denied the basic right of survival and access to justice, it further aggravates their poverty. Therefore, even in order to eliminate poverty, access to justice to the poor sections of the society becomes imperative. In the instant case, it is the poverty which compelled the appellants to restrict the claim to Rs. 115/per sq. yard, as they were not in a position to pay the court fee on a higher amount.13. It is the aforesaid weighty consideration which justify award of compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 297/per square yards. Though, the aforesaid reasons are enough to allow the appeals, in the present case, there is yet another additional circumstance which justifies this outcome.The High Court, in the process, also took aid of Section 28 of the Act. Thus, even those villagers whose land was acquired subsequently, are given compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/per square yards. Depriving this rate to the appellants herein would be nothing but travesty of justice.16. Simply because the appellants had paid court fee on the claim at the rate of Rs. 115/square yards could not be the reason to deny the compensation at a higher rate. This could be taken care of by directing the appellants to pay the difference in court fee after calculating the same at the rate of Rs. 297/per square yards.