Anek Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Court: Supreme Court
Case type: Civil Appeal
Decided on: 28-11-2024

<pre> 2024 INSC 915
NON-REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). @ SLP(C) NOS.28287-28288/2019
ANEK SINGH ETC. APPELLANT(S)
 VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated
30.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Nos.836 of
1988 and 1124 of 2003, thereby dismissing the same.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
under:-
Vide Notification dated 05.02.1977 published in the
Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, ‘the Act’) the land of village Annanpura, Tehsil
and District Mathura admeasuring 263.05 acres was acquired
for the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UPSIDC’) for a
Signature Not Verified
planned industrial development. Notification under Section
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.11.30
15:21:59 IST
Reason:
6 of the Act was published on 07.02.1977 and the possession
of the land was taken on 13.05.1977. The Special Land
1

Acquisition Officer made the award on 30.08.1980,
determining the compensation on the basis of soil quality,
as under:-
</pre><table><thead><tr><th>Soil Quality</th><th>Rate per Acre (In Rs.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Baraha Avval Chahi</td><td>1489.93</td></tr><tr><td>Baraha Avval Khaki</td><td>6923.35</td></tr><tr><td>Baraha Doyam Chahi</td><td>7972.35</td></tr><tr><td>Baraha Doyam Khaki</td><td>4825.37</td></tr><tr><td>Putha Khaki</td><td>3143.98</td></tr></tbody></table><pre>
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants made a reference
under Section 18 of the Act and the same was rejected.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred the first
appeals and the same were also dismissed. Hence the present
appeals by way of special leave petitions.
4. Shri S.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants, submits that the land, which is not as
proximate to Mathura refinery, i.e. village Bhainsa the
compensation has been granted @ Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. It is
submitted that though the land of the appellants is just
across the Mathura refinery the compensation granted to the
appellants was @ Rs.1.93 per sq. mtr.
5. He also relies on the order issued by the District
Magistrate, Mathura, vide which the circle rates have been
notified in different areas in the Mathura District. He,
therefore, submits that the High Court has grossly erred in
dismissing the appeals.
6. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Additional Advocate General
2

appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary,
submits that all the three Courts have concurrently upon the
material placed before them come to a considered conclusion
that the lands of the appellants were an agricultural land
and therefore, rightly granted compensation depending on the
basis of the type of soil.
7. The order dated 22.01.1977 of the District Magistrate,
Mathura determines the value of the land of which the stamp
duty has to be paid for executing the sale deeds. It can be
seen that the Reference Court in the case of
agriculturalists from village Bhainsa has taken the same
into consideration and awarded compensation @ Rs.15/- per
sq. mtr. Apart from that the order dated 22.01.1977 issued
by the Collector Mathura has also revealed that the
valuation of the land from the areas surrounding Mathura
refinery within the radius of 1 km., has been determined at
Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. The averment of the appellants in the
appeals that the land of the appellants is situated just
across the road in front of Gate No.9 of Mathura refinery
has gone unchallenged. 
8. It is thus clear that the respondents have not disputed
the position that the land is just across the road facing
Gate No.9 of the Mathura refinery.
9. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned
orders are not sustainable in law.
10. The impugned order dated 30.04.2019 is quashed and set
aside and the appeals are allowed.
11. The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the
appellants @ Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. The appellants are also
entitled to all the statutory benefits along with the
interest on the amount awarded, which shall be paid within a
period of eight weeks from today.
3

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J
( B.R. GAVAI )
..............................J
( K.V. VISWANATHAN ) 
NEW DELHI; 
NOVEMBER 28, 2024
4

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).28287-28288/2019
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-04-2019
in FA No. 836/1988 30-04-2019 in FA No. 1124/2003 passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]
ANEK SINGH ETC. Petitioner(s)
 VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(I.R. and IA No.183947/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA 
No.183946/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL 
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) 
Date : 28-11-2024 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.P. Singh, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR
 Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
 Mr. Rohan Chaudhary, Adv.
 Mr. K. Sita Rama Rao, Adv.
 Mr. Rajiv Varma, Adv.
 Ms. Sheetal Gupta, Adv.
 Mr. Manjeet Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Shannu Bhaghel,Adv.
Mr. Vithal Aditya,Adv.
 
For Respondent(s) Mr. K Parmeshwar, Sr. Adv.
 Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR
 Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv.
 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
 O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR)
 DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER 
(Signed “Non-Reportable” judgment is placed on the file)
5</pre>