Holding

The petitioners are entitled only to compensation of Rs 28.12 paisa per square yard for the 1976 acquisitions, as the Mangu decision is not comparable and the prevailing judicial authority fixes the amount at Rs 28.12 paisa.

Summary

The petitioners, original landowners of two parcels acquired in 1976 for the NOIDA project, challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Courts (Rs 4.628 and Rs 6 per square yard) and sought enhancement to Rs 297 per square yard, relying on the High Court's decision in Mangu v. State of U.P. and the earlier judgment in Jagmal v. State of U.P. The Supreme Court held that the Mangu case, involving a 1991 acquisition, is not comparable with the 1976 acquisitions because of a fifteen‑year gap and a different development context. It further noted that the Jagmal award of Rs 297 was subsequently reviewed and reduced to Rs 28.12 paisa per square yard, a figure consistently applied by the High Court in several 1976‑1977 cases. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled only to Rs 28.12 paisa per square yard, not Rs 297, and the appeals were partly allowed to modify the compensation accordingly.

Issues considered

The petitioners' claim for compensation of Rs 297 per square yard based on the Mangu judgment (acquisition in 1991).
Whether the Jagmal judgment (originally Rs 297) is applicable to the 1976 acquisitions.
Whether a depreciation formula derived from the Khazan case (acquisition in 1983) can be used to enhance compensation for the 1976 acquisitions.
Whether the High Court's procedural mistake in grouping appeals can be benefitted by the petitioners.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLI Rule 27
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 4, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensation enhancementParity of judgmentMangu caseJagmal caseDepreciation formulaSupreme Court1976 acquisitionNOIDALand Acquisition Act

Judgment

[2021] 7 S.C.R. 671 671

AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5738 – 5739 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 B
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Enhancement of compensation
– Plea of – Two separate Land Acquisition proceedings were carried
out to acquire lands – In one proceeding notification u/s.4 was
C
issued on 30.04.1976 – The Special Land Acquisition Officer
declared the award for compensation @Rs.2.38 per square yard –
However, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs.4.628 per square yard – Aggrieved, the land owners filed appeals
before the High Court, which were dismissed – In another proceeding,
notification u/s.4 was issued on 16.09.1976 – The Reference Court D
enhanced the compensation to Rs.6 per square yard – The High
Court dismissed the appeal for enhanced compensation and
confirmed the judgment passed by the Reference Court – Both the
appeals are before the Supreme Court – Appellants from both sides
pleaded to enhance the compensation to Rs. 297/- per square yard
E
by relying on the judgment and order passed by the High Court in
Mangu and Ors. v. State of U.P. – Held: The case of Mangu and
Ors., notification u/s. 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1991, but
in the present case the notification u/s. 4 of the Act was issued in
the year 1976 – The said judgment and order passed by the High
Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. cannot be said to be F
comparable because of the time gap of approximately 15 years
between the dates of acquisition – The claimants in the present case
cannot claim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relying
upon the decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. with regard to the
acquisition of the year 1991 – However, in the case of Jagmal Vs.
G
State of U.P., the High Court noted and determined the compensation
@ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard and same was confirmed by the
Supreme Court – Therefore, as such at the most, the claimants can
be said to be entitled to compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square
yard with regard to the lands acquired in the year 1976-1977.
H
671
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A Partly allowing the Appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Having perused the decision of the High Court
in the case of Mangu and Ors., which has been heavily relied
upon by the claimants- landowners, it emerges that as such in
the case of Mangu and Ors., notification under Section 4 of the
B Act was issued in the year 1991, but in the present case the
notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on
01.06.1976. Even the possession of the land in the case of Mangu
and Ors. was taken over in 1992 and in the present case the
possession of the land had been taken over in 1976. In the present
case, the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition
C Officer on 25.02.1978 whereas in the case of Mangu and Ors.,
the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
on 20.09.1993 and, therefore, the said judgment and order passed
by the High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. cannot be said
to be comparable at all because of the time gap of approximately
D 15 years between the dates of acquisition. Furthermore, the High
Court decided the batch of First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the
case of Mangu and Ors. along with the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21
of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987. Nobody
specifically pointed out that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52
of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 were with regard to the
E acquisition of 1977. Therefore, without noticing the aforesaid
reference mechanically First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of
1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with regard to the acquisition
of year 1977 came to be disposed of along with First Appeal
No.1100 of 2004 and mechanically the compensation with regard
F to the acquisition of 1977 came to be enhanced to Rs.297/- per
square yard. That as such it was a mistake on the part of the High
Court in not noticing the difference with regard to the acquisition
of the years 1977 and 1991. Nobody can be permitted to take the
benefit of the mistake either of the Court or of any party. [Para
13][681-B-F; 682-D]
G
3. Assuming for the time being that as the review
applications are pending, this Court may not take note of the
subsequent events of filing the review applications, which are
yet to be decided by the High Court, in that case also and for the
reasons stated above and considering the obvious mistake
H
AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 673
ANR.

referred to herein above, the claimants in the present case cannot A
claim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relying upon
the decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. with regard to the
acquisition of the year 1991. [Para 13.1][682-F-G]
4. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the
claimants have also heavily relied upon the judgment of the High B
Court in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. in First Appeal No.
458 of 1984 determining the compensation @ Rs. 297/- per square
yard with respect to the lands acquired by notification dated
16.09.1976. However, it is required to be noted that the judgment
and order dated 11.03.2015 passed in First Appeal No.458 of 1984
in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. came to be subsequently C
reviewed by the High Court allowing the Civil Misc. Review
Application No.174702 of 2015 in which the High Court
subsequently noted and determined the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard. It is reiterated that decision in
I.A. No. 116578 of 2021 reducing the compensation to Rs.28.12 D
paisa per square yard for the lands acquired in the year 1976 has
been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2016. [Para
13.2][682-G-H; 683-A-B; 683-D]
5. Even in one case, i.e., in the case of Jagdish Chand Vs.
State of U.P. where the High Court determined the compensation E
@ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to the acquisition
pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the special leave petition has
been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Therefore, as such
at the most, the claimants can be said to be entitled to
compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to
the lands acquired in the year 1976-1977. [Para 13.3][683-E-F] F

6. The appellants are claiming that in the case of the
appellants, the land was acquired in the year 1976 and in the case
of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. the land was acquired in the
year 1983, by adopting a formula of deducting 10% depreciation
each year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, the G
compensation may be determined, the aforesaid cannot be
accepted. As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation
determined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said

H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A to be comparable at all. Even otherwise in the facts and
circumstances, the same cannot be said to be comparable because
of the fact that it has come on record that in the year 1976 when
the lands in question were acquired, there was no development
at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the development had
taken place and even the development plan has been sanctioned
B
at the time when the land was acquired in the year 1983, therefore,
the aforesaid request cannot be accepted. [Para 14][683-H; 684-
A-C]
Mangu and ors. v. State of U.P. Appeal No. 1100 of
2004 decided by the High Court; Khazan and Ors. v.
C State of U.P. (First Appeal No. 564 of 1997 decided by
the High Court); Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR 512 –
referred to.
Jagmal v. State of U.P. ( First Appeal No. 458 of 1984
D decided by the High Court and confirmed by the
Supreme Court by order dated 30.09.2016) – relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 7 SCR 512 referred to Para 8.3
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.5738-
5739 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Application No.167571 of 2016
in first appeal No.487 of 1984 and order dated 15.12.2016 in first appeal
F
No.487 of 1984.
With
Civil Appeal No.5740 of 2021.
Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., K. S. Rana, O. N. Singh,
G Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Pankaj Dubey, Prashant Sharma, Raghuvir Sharma,
Vipin Kumar Sharma, Dharmendra Sharma, Ms. Shipra Shukla,
Ms. Meena Hasan, Advs. for the Appellants.
V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,
Anurag Tiwari, Ms. Vaidhruti Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Rachit Mittal,
H Manohar Naagar, Sudhir Naagar, Advs. for the Respondents.
AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 675
ANR.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the High Court of
judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1983 and 487 of
1984 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has B
confirmed the judgment and the order passed by the Reference Court
awarding the compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs.4.628 per square
yard, original landowners have preferred the present appeals being Civil
Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of 2021. The appellants have also challenged
the common order dated 02.11.2016 in Civil Misc. Application No.167571 C
of 2016 in First Appeal No. 487 of 1984 by which the High Court has
dismissed the application for bringing on record certain additional
documents filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has arisen out of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court D
has dismissed the First Appeal No. 203 of 1983 and has confirmed the
judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court awarding
the compensation for the lands acquired @ Rs.6/- per square yard.
Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of 2021
3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act E
(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) was issued on 30.04.1976 proposing
to acquire 589 bigha, 6 biswa and 14 biswansi land. The land was to be
acquired for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as “NOIDA”) constituted under the provisions of U.P.
Industrial Development Act, 1976 for the purpose of planned development F
of industries in the area within the jurisdiction of NOIDA. Declaration
under Section 6 was published on 01.05.1976. Possession of land was
taken by the Collector on 31.07.1977. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer declared the award for compensation on 28.03.1977 offering
compensation @ Rs.10,200/- per bigha, i.e., Rs.2.38 per square yard.
At the instance of the landowners, a Reference was made to the G
Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to enhance
the amount of compensation. Before the Reference Court, landowners
claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square yard. However,
after considering the material on record, the Reference Court enhanced
the compensation to Rs.14,000/- per bigha (Rs.4.628 per square yard).
H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation to
Rs.14,000/- per bigha only (Rs.4.628 per square yard), the landowners
preferred the First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1983 and 487 of 1984 before the
High Court of judicature at Allahabad and by the impugned common
judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals. Before
B
the High Court, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 was preferred
to bring on record certain documents as additional evidence, which was
also dismissed by the High Court by order dated 02.11.2016.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeals
C and confirming the order passed by the Reference Court enhancing the
compensation to Rs.4.628 per square yard, the claimants - original
landowners have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021
D 6. So far as Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 is concerned, a
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to
acquire 154 bigha 9 biswa and 11 biswansi of land at Village Baraula,
Pargana & District Ghaziabad also for the development of the NOIDA
and for the said purpose, the notification under Section 4 was issued on
16.09.1976. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.09.1976. At
E the instance of the original landowners, reference was made before the
District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
Reference Court – the learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad
enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,150/- per bigha (Rs.6 per square
yard). The High Court by the impugned judgment and order in First
F Appeal No.203 of 1983 has dismissed the said appeal for enhancing the
compensation and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the
Reference Court. Hence the present appeal.
7. Shri Harshvir Pratap Sharma, learned senior counsel has
appeared on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of
G 2021 and Dr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel has appeared on behalf
of the appellants in Civil Appeal No.5740 of 2021. Shri Rachit Mittal,
learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent – NOIDA.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants
have prayed to enhance the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard
H relying upon the judgment and order passed by the High Court in First
AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 677
ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 titled Mangu and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. It is A
submitted that while disposing of First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 by which
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard,
the High Court also disposed of the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52
of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with respect to the lands acquired
in the year 1977. It is submitted that aforesaid four appeals were with
B
regard to the acquisition held in the year 1977 and while passing a
common judgment and order in First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004, i.e., in the
case of Mangu and Ors. (supra), the compensation was enhanced to
Rs.297/- per square yard. It is submitted that therefore as the High
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard in aforesaid
First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of C
1987 with regard to the land acquired in the year 1977, in the present
case also, the claimants pray to enhance the compensation to Rs.297/-
per square yard, as in the present case, the lands had been acquired in
the year 1976. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court also vide order
dated 27.01.2016 has dismissed the special leave petition challenging
D
the judgment dated 03.12.2014 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra).
8.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants - original claimants relying upon the map of District
Gautam Budh Nagar that village Baraula (land acquired in the present
case) and village Kakrala Khaspur (land acquired in the case of Mangu
and Ors. (supra)) are adjoining to each other. It is submitted that E
appellants’ land being similarly situated, the present appellants are also
entitled to the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard on the basis of
the principle of parity and equality.
8.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants of Civil
Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has submitted that alternatively the appellants F
are also claiming the enhanced compensation considering the
compensation in the case of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (First
Appeal No. 564 of 1997), where the acquisition proceedings
commenced in the year 1983 and the compensation was enhanced to
Rs.297/- per square yard. It is submitted that the appellants, whose land G
was acquired in the year 1976 can be held entitled for the compensation
by adopting the formula of deducting 10% depreciation each year and
after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, the appellants can be
provided with the enhanced compensation accordingly.

H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A 8.3 Dr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 has also relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21, a case related with acquisition
of 65 villages of NOIDA, in which case, this Hon’ble Court not only
granted enhanced compensation of 64.7% but also provided 105
B
developed abadi plot of the land acquired of each of the landowners to
balance the equity between the landowners/farmers and the State. It is
further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants that first appeals before the High Court have been pending
for 34 years and the appellants - original landowners are struggling for
C enhanced compensation for last 45 years after losing their only source
of livelihood, i.e., their agriculture land in above acquisition proceedings
held in the year 1976. It is submitted, therefore, that the issue of
enhancement of compensation may also be considered from that angle
and considering the suffering of the land losers and the farmers.
D 9. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Mittal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA.
9.1 Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA
has vehemently submitted that the judgment and order passed by the
High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) shall not be
E applicable to the present acquisition and the same cannot be said to be
comparable at all. It is submitted that it is true that First Appeal (D) Nos.
21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 with regard to the
acquisition of the year 1977 also came to be disposed of alongwith First
Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) and
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard,
F it is submitted that inadvertently and because of the fact that the High
Court disposed of the batch of appeals alongwith First Appeal No. 1100
of 2004 with regard to the acquisition of the year 1991, neither it was
noticed by the High Court nor it was noticed by the learned counsel for
the NOIDA and of the State that First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52
G of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 were with respect to the acquisition
in the year 1977 and nothing was brought to the notice of the High Court
that aforesaid four first appeals were related to the acquisition of 1977.
It is submitted that without noticing that the aforesaid four first appeals
were with regard to the acquisition of the year 1977, the aforesaid four
first appeals came to be disposed of alongwith First Appeal No.1100 of
H 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) mechanically and without
AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 679
ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

noticing the difference between the dates of acquisition and inadvertently A
the compensation was enhanced to Rs.297/- per square yard alongwith
First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra).
It is submitted that having realized the aforesaid mistake immediately
the review applications have been preferred before the High Court and
the same are pending.
B
9.2 However, Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
NOIDA has fairly considered that in view of the decision of the High
Court subsequently confirmed by this Court in the case of co-owner of
the same piece of land as of the appellants by which the High Court
awarded the compensation of Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard, to that
extent, the appeals can be allowed and the impugned judgment and order C
passed by the High Court can be modified enhancing the compensation
to Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.
9.3 Shri Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA
has also further pointed out that so far as the reliance placed on the
judgment of the High Court in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. – D
First Appeal No. 458 of 1984 dated 11.03.2015 is concerned, it is
submitted that the said order has been subsequently reviewed by the
High Court by order dated 27.05.2016 and the compensation has been
fixed at Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard. It is submitted that the order
passed by the High Court in review determining the compensation @ E
Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard has been confirmed by this Court by
order dated 30.09.2016.
9.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA has also
relied upon the following judgments and order passed by the High Court
determining the compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with F
regard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976:-
S.No. Particulars Remarks
1. Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State Hon’ble High Court fixed the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per sq. yard vide order dated
08.09.2009
2. Bhola Vs. State of U.P. Hon’ble High Court fixed the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per sq. yard vide order dated
04.11.2016 G
3. Gyan Chand Vs. State of U.P. Hon’ble High Court fixed the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per sq. yard vide order dated
14.12.2016.
4. Daal Chand Vs. State of U.P. Hon’ble High Court fixed the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per sq. yard vide order dated
03.11.2016
5. Jagdish Chand Vs. State of U.P. Hon’ble High Court fixed the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per sq. yard vide order dated
21.12.2016 the said order was challenged before
this Hon’ble Court and the SLP was withdrawn
vide order dated 19.01.2018
H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A It is submitted therefore that consistently with regard to the
acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the compensation has been
fixed at Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.
9.5 Now, so far as the alternative submission made by Dr. Rajeev
Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners
B in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 to determine the compensation
considering the decision in the case of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. (supra) where the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year
1983 and the compensation was fixed at Rs.297/- per square yard and
to determine the compensation by adopting a formula of deducting 10%
depreciation each year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07
C years to determine the compensation accordingly, it is vehemently
submitted that the decision in the judgment and order in the case of
Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.(supra) cannot be relied upon firstly
on the ground that the acquisition in the said case was of the year 1983,
i.e., after approximately 07 years from the date of acquisition in the
D present case and secondly on the ground that there has been much
development after 1980 with respect to the NOIDA area and the
development plan was also sanctioned in the year 1983.
10. Making above submissions, it is prayed to reject the claim of
the landowners to claim compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard.
E 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that so far
as filing of the review applications by the NOIDA authority in the
aforesaid four First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of
1987 and 17 of 1987 are concerned, it is submitted that these review
applications have been filed only on 17.02.2019 and they are still defective
F and not yet listed before the High Court. It is submitted that these
review applications have been filed by the NOIDA authority only when
the appellants referred the aforesaid four first appeals in the additional
documents. It is, therefore, requested not to consider the subsequent
events after the filing of the review applications in the present appeals.

G 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
at length.
12.1 The only point for determination in these appeals is whether
the present appellants – landowners/claimants are justified in claiming
compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard claiming parity of judgment
dated 03.12.2014 passed in First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 - Mangu and
H
AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 681
ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Ors. (supra) and the common judgment and order disposing of the First A
Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987
alongwith the First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 - Mangu and Ors. (supra)
determining the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard?
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and having perused the decision of the High Court in the case of Mangu B
and Ors. (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the claimants-
landowners, it emerges that as such in the case of Mangu and Ors.
(supra), notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year
1991, but in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act
had been issued on 01.06.1976. Even the possession of the land in the
case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) was taken over in 1992 and in the C
present case the possession of the land had been taken over in 1976. In
the present case, the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 25.02.1978 whereas in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra),
the award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on
20.09.1993 and, therefore, the said judgment and order passed by the D
High Court in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) cannot be said to
be comparable at all because of the time gap of approximately 15 years
between the dates of acquisition. However, it is the case on behalf of
the appellants that while disposing of the First Appeal No.1100 of 2004
in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra), the High Court also disposed
of the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 E
of 1987 with regard to the acquisition of the year 1977 and the High
Court also enhanced the compensation to Rs.297/- per square yard in
the said first appeals with regard to the acquisition in the year 1977 and
therefore on the ground of parity and equality, the claimants with regard
to the acquisition of the year 1976 are entitled to the enhanced F
compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard.
The aforesaid seems to be very attractive but cannot be accepted
for the following reasons:-
(i) That High Court decided the batch of appeals alongwith
First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 in the case of Mangu and G
Ors. (supra);
(ii) It appears that inadvertently and without noticing that so
far as the First Appeal (D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987;
162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 are concerned, they were with
H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A regard to the acquisition of the year 1977, inadvertently
and by mistake they were tagged alongwith First Appeal
No. 1100 of 2004;
(iii) Nobody specifically pointed out that First Appeal (D) Nos.
21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of 1987 were
B with regard to the acquisition of 1977. Therefore, without
noticing the aforesaid reference mechanically First Appeal
(D) Nos. 21 of 1987; 52 of 1987; 162 of 1987 and 17 of
1987 with regard to the acquisition of year 1977 came to be
disposed of along with First Appeal No.1100 of 2004 and
mechanically the compensation with regard to the acquisition
C of 1977 came to be enhanced to Rs.297/- per square yard;
(iv) That as such it was a mistake on the part of the High Court
in not noticing the difference with regard to the acquisition
of the years 1977 and 1991;

D (v) Nobody can be permitted to take the benefit of the mistake
either of the Court or of any party, which mistake has
occurred inadvertently and without noticing the peculiar
facts. As such it was the duty of the Advocate for the
claimants to point out the correct facts;

E (vi) Even otherwise it is to be noted that immediately after
noticing the above, the review applications have been
preferred in the aforesaid first appeals and which are
reported to be pending.
13.1 Assuming for the time being that as the review applications
F are pending, this Court may not take note of the subsequent events of
filing the review applications, which are yet to be decided by the High
Court, in that case also and for the reasons stated above and considering
the obvious mistake referred to herein above, the claimants in the present
case cannot claim the compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard relying
upon the decision in the case of Mangu and Ors. (supra) with regard
G to the acquisition of the year 1991.
13.2 At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the claimants
have also heavily relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the case
of Jagmal Vs. State of U.P.in First Appeal No. 458 of 1984
determining the compensation @ Rs. 297/- per square yard with respect
H to the lands acquired by notification dated 16.09.1976. However, it is
AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 683
ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

required to be noted that the judgment and order dated 11.03.2015 passed A
in First Appeal No.458 of 1984 in the case of Jagmal Vs. State of
U.P.(supra) came to be subsequently reviewed by the High Court
allowing the Civil Misc. Review Application No.174702 of 2015 in which
the High Court subsequently noted and determined the compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard by observing in paragraph 31 as under:-
B
“31. Since in the matter of same acquisition and of the same
village and also in acquisitions of land adjoining or nearby villages
by notifications of Section 4(1) of the Act of the years 1976 and
1977, this court determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12 per
square yard and also since the claimants appellants or the
respondents have failed to point out any distinguishing feature in C
the present set of facts and as such I have no hesitation to hold
that the claimants appellants are entitled to compensation of their
acquired land @ Rs.28.12 per square yard.”
It is reiterated that decision in I.A. No. 116578 of 2021 reducing
the compensation to Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard for the lands acquired D
in the year 1976 has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated
30.09.2016.
13.3 From the table reproduced hereinabove, it can also be seen
that with regard to the acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977
consistently the High Court has determined the compensation @ Rs.28.12 E
paisa per square yard. Even in one case, i.e., in the case of Jagdish
Chand Vs. State of U.P. (supra) where the High Court determined the
compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to the
acquisition pertaining to the year 1976-1977, the special leave petition
has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Therefore, as such at F
the most, the claimants can be said to be entitled to compensation @
Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard with regard to the lands acquired in the
year 1976-1977.
14. Now, so far as the alternative submission made on behalf of
the claimants in Civil Appeal No. 5740 of 2021 to determine the G
compensation on the basis of the judgment of the High Court in the case
of Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) where the acquisition
proceedings commenced in the year 1983 and the compensation was
determined @ Rs.297/- per square yard is concerned, the aforesaid
cannot be accepted. The appellants are claiming that in the case of the
appellants, the land was acquired in the year 1976 and in the case of H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A Khazan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) the land was acquired in
the year 1983, by adopting a formula of deducting 10% depreciation
each year and after deducting 10% depreciation for 07 years, the
compensation may be determined, the aforesaid cannot be accepted.
As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determined
B for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at
all. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be
said to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on record
that in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, there
was no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the
development had taken place and even the development plan has been
C sanctioned at the time when the land was acquired in the year 1983,
therefore, the aforesaid request cannot be accepted.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
appeals are partly allowed. It is held that the original landowners –
claimants – appellants herein are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.28.12
D paisa per square yard with respect to the lands acquired in the year
1976. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are
modified to the above extent. It goes without saying that the claimants
shall be entitled to the statutory benefits as may be available under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced amount of
E compensation @ Rs.28.12 paisa per square yard.
All the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, however,
there shall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan Appeals partly allowed.
F

G

H