Case: Uttar Pradesh Government Vs. H.S. Gupta

2. On the 3rd September 1947, the Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow, made an award by which he held that the claimant was entitled to get compensation in the sum of Rs. 2, 88, 000 along with 15 per cent, for compulsory acquisition under S. 3(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, as well as damages to the extent of Rs.350 per mensem resulting from the diminution of profits fromi.e., the date of publication of declaration, under S. 6, till the date of taking over possession of the property, viz. 6th September 1947. Not being satisfied with the award, at the instance of the claimant a reference was made to the District Judge of Lucknow under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned District Judge, after an exhaustive consideration of the various points arising, came to the conclusion that as the net saleable area came to 4, 09, 952 square foot. Valuing the same at Rs.per square foot, the compensation due to the claimant on that footing would be Rs 4, 61, 196. The bungalow on the site, as well as other structures were separately valued with the result that the totalof the property came to Rs.5, 28, 413. The claimant was held entitled to 15 percent. seltium in account of compulsory nature of acquisition and together with that the compensation under cl.(1) of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act came to Rs.6, 07.675. A sum of Rs.983 was also awarded under cl.(6)of S. 23. The claimant was also allowed interest at 6 percent per annum of Rs. 2, 76, 583 being the excess amount allowed by the District Judge from the 6th September 1917 to the date of payment of the excess in Court. Against the decree and judgement of the District Judge of Lucknow, the Government of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal in the High Court of Judicature, at Allahabad, Lucknow Branch, Lucknow, and the learned Judges (Agarwala and Hari Shankar JJ.) by their judgement dated the 22nd September 1953, reduced the compensation allowed by the District Judge. The present appeals are the outcome of the decision of the Allahabad High Court.

Court's reasoning:
6. Mr. S. P. Sinha has not been able to persuade us that the compensation allowed by the High Court differing from the view expressed by the District Judge that the criterion for valuation should be on the basis of blocks, is unsound and unacceptable. The High Court has given valid and weighty reason for adopting that the valuation should be on plot rate though there are certain advantages in computing the value at the block rate where vast area of the land is acquired. In the present case as the learned District Judge has observed the layout, according to the plan Exhibit 52, enables the claimant to get better value for the land than if the same had been disposed of withoutand dissection. We feel that in the circumstances of the case, the proper mode of valuation should be on plot basis. Mr. Sinha has not been able to substantiate any of the other specific points raised by him in his grounds ofpersued the deposition of P. W. 8, we do not think that the construction put upon a stray statement like the one in question should have weighed with the judges in reducing the priceper square foot.That the scheme adumbrated in Exhibit 52 is a feasible and workable one, designed andsome years anterior to the time when the compulsory acquisition was decided upon, cannot be disputed and as the leaned Judges of the High Court in concurrence with the District Judge have held that there can be no. difficulty in finding purchasers for all the plots in accordance with the lay out in exhibit 52, we do not find any justification for any reduction in the valueper square foot.The conditions which appertain, to the Dilkusha estate resemble to a considerable extent those obtained with regard to Mahanager scheme and it will not be inappropriate to base a conclusion on a comparison of the factual details of Mahanagar scheme. Having rightly agreed with the District, Judge thatper square foot should be taken as the average rate for valuing the land if the criterion to be adopted is plotwise, we do not find any justification in the learned judges of the High Court falling back upon the method of block wise sale, especially when we, see from the evidence that there is no. doubt whatever that there are willing, if not anxious, purchasers for all the plots delineated in Exhibit 52. The application of the principal that if the land has to be sold in one block consisting of a large area, the rate per square foot likely to be fetched would be smaller than if an equal extent of land is parcelled out into smaller bits and sold to different purchasers, cannot be reasonably applied to the circumstances in the present case. The High Court should have, in our view concentrated its attention on the price fetched for smaller extent of land similarly situated with the same kind of advantages and drawbacks and then applied that test to the facts in the present case. Viewed in that light, it would be proper to consider the Mahanagar scheme as the nearest approach. In our view, the learned District Judge was right in thinking that Rs.per square foot should be the price of the various plots as delineated, in Exhibit 52. We do not, therefore, think that the reduction of a sum of Rs.53, 366 from the amount awarded by the District Judge is justified. Basing our conclusion on the reasonsabove, the order of the High Court has to be modified in this respect and that of the district judge restored.9.The second point urged by Mr. Dar is in regard to the disallowing ofhe 8th July, 1948, the Land Acquisition Officer wrote Exhibit 64 to the District Judge of Lucknow, stating that since the question of filing an appeal against the order of the District Judge was under consideration, the additional compensation should not be paid to the claimant till the matter was settled and, therefore, though the amount was in deposit and could have been withdrawn by the claimant on that date, he was not paid the money. Afterwards while the appeal was pending before the High Court, an application was made on the 18th August 1948, under 0.41, R.5, Civil Procedure Code, for the stay of the delivery of the amount to the claimant and on the 28th August 1948, an ad interim stay order was made by that Court. On the 4th April 1949, the High Court passed the final order that the application cannot be granted unless the U.P. Govt. agreed to pay the, claimant interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum up to the date of payment; on this the, learned Government Advocate undertook to obtain instructions and inform the Court within a week what attitude the Government took. On the 12th May 1949, the application for stay was dismissed as not pressed.