Full Text
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4445 OF 2020)
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD .....APPELLANT(S)
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5184 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4447 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4444 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5185 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 362 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5188 OF 2020)
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4685 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4680 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5244 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5190 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5242 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4446 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4686 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5245 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4687 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4688 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4690 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4448 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5191 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4691 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4692 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5247 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4695 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5192 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4693 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5193 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4684 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4679 OF 2020)
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5194 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4696 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5195 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4694 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 369 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5197 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4681 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5198 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 371 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5230 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5231 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5232 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5233 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 345 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5248 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4683 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5236 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5237 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5238 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5249 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4698 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5239 OF 2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5240 OF 2020)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5241 OF 2020)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals arise out of an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 19.07.2019 whereby a compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was awarded for the land acquired in six villages apart from the statutory benefits. In the present set of 51 appeals, 38 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Prahlad Garhi; 2 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Jhandapur; 3 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Sahibabad; 2 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Jhandapur/ Sahibabad; 1 appeal pertains to land situated at Village Arthala and 5 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Makanpur.
2. The appellant – U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad[1] has been constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965[2]. A notification was published on 26.06.1982 by the Parishad under Section 28 of the Act intending to acquire 1229.914 acres of land. Subsequently, a notification under Section 32 of the Act was published on 28.02.1987. Sections 28 and 32 of the Act are equivalent to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18943.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer announced an award on 27.02.1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 50/- per square yard in respect of land of all the six villages and compensation of Rs. 35/- per square yard was awarded in respect of land owners owning more than 8 acres. The area of the land for which the compensation was awarded in the six villages is as under: Sr. No. Name of Village Area (In Acres)
6 Sahibabad 107.05 Total 1157.895 The remaining area measuring 72.019 acres was the land of the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, for which no compensation was awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.
4. The land owners being aggrieved of the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer sought a Reference for determining the market value. The Learned Additional District Judge while deciding the Reference awarded Rs. 120/- per square yard as the compensation apart from the statutory benefits vide award dated 23.05.2000.
5. The landowners as well as the Parishad filed appeals against the decision of the Reference Court. Such appeals were decided separately by the High Court in respect of land acquired by the above stated notification under Section 28 of the Act. The first appeal in U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal & Ors.[4] filed by the Parishad in respect of land situated in Village Prahladgarhi was dismissed on 21.07.2015. The land owners have relied upon the following three sale deeds in appeal before the High Court to claim higher compensation: Sr. No. Date of Sale Deed Area/Village Rate per square Yard 1 26.12.80 130 sq. mtr./Village Sahibabad Rs. 180/- 2 12.5.80 125 sq. mtr./ Village Sahibabad Rs. 150/- 3 19.6.82 242 sq. mtr./ Village Sahibabad Rs. 150/-
6. The High Court considering the three sale deeds held as under:
7. The compensation awarded @ Rs.120/- per square yard vide order dated 21.7.2015 attained finality when the Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 4636 of 2016 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jawahar Lal (D) through LRs & Ors.) filed by the Parishad was dismissed on 28.03.2016.
8. Another appeal Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash
4 First Appeal No. 56 of 2005 decided on 21.7.2015 Parishad & Anr.[5] arising against the award of the Reference Court dated 23.5.2000 filed by the land owners in respect of land situated in Village Jhandapur was initially dismissed by the High Court on 16.12.2015. The land owners in the appeal relied upon the following sale deeds in support of their contention for determining the market value:
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ market value of the land acquired. │ │ Sl. Date of Acquisition Purpose of Case Details Compensatio Supreme Court │ │ No. publication pertain(s) to Acquisition n per square │ │ of Village/Villages yard awarded │ │ Notification by the High │ │ u/s 4 Court │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. 26.6.1982 Makanpur UP Awas- FA 56 of 2005 Rs. 120/- per SLP (Civil) No. │ │ parishad decided on square yard 4636 of 2016 │ │ 21.7.2015 awarded by dismissed on │ │ Reference 28.3.2016 │ │ Court │ │ maintained. │ │ 2 15.3.1988 Makanpur Noida FA No. 522 of 297/- Earlier Civil Appeal │ │ 2009 No. 1506-1507 of │ │ Pradeep Kumar 2016 (SLP(Civil) │ │ v. State of UP & Nos. 25237-25248 │ │ Anr. and other of 2015) – │ │ connected Pradeep Kumar │ │ appeals etc. etc. v. State of │ │ decided on U.P. & Anr. allowed │ │ 21.4.2016 on 16.2.2016 │ │ (2016) 6 SCC 308 │ │ 3 12.9.1986 Makanpur, Ghaziabad FA No. 451 of Rs.115/- Civil Appeals No. │ │ Developmen 1999 10429-10430 of │ │ t Authority (Narendra v. 2017 preferred by │ │ State of U.P. & land owners was │ │ Ors.) decided allowed on │ │ on 5.12.2014 11.9.2017 and the │ │ compensation was │ │ enhanced to │ │ Rs.297/- per │ │ square yards │ │ 4 28.02.1987 Makanpur Ghaziabad FA No. 910 of 297/- SLP (Civil) No. │ │ Developmen 2000 (GDA v. 5815 of 2015 with │ │ t Authority Kashi Ram & connected SLPs │ │ Ors.) with filed by GDA │ │ Connected dismissed on │ │ appeals by the 5.5.2015 │ │ land owners │ │ decided on │ │ 13.11.2014 │ │ 5 16.8.1988 Makanpur Ghaziabad FA no. 41 of Rs.160/- per Civil Appeal No. │ │ Developmen 2005 square yard 16960 of 2016- Jai │ │ t Authority Rameshwar awarded by Prakash v. State of │ │ Dayal v. State Reference UP allowed on │ │ of UP Court 24.10.2017 │ │ And other maintained. Compensation │ │ connected enhanced to Rs. │ │ appeals. 297/- per square │ │ Decided on yard │ │ 22.7.2015 │ │ 6 19.12.1980 Chhalera Khadar Noida FA No. 310 of Rs.297/- Appeal filed by the │ │ 2008 State was │ │ (Mohkam & dismissed as │ │ Anr. v. State of withdrawn on │ │ U.P.) 30.6.2016 │ │ Decided on │ │ 16.2.2015 │ │ 7 1983, 1986 Bhangel Noida FA No. Rs.297/- SLP(C) No. 15867- │ │ and 1988 Begumpur 564/1997 15883 of 2013 by │ │ Khazan & Ors. Noida dismissed on │ │ v. State of U.P. 5.2.2014 │ │ and other │ │ connected │ │ appeals │ │ decided on │ │ 11.10.2012 │ │ 1986, 1988, Nagla │ │ 1991 and Charandas, │ │ 1992 Geha Tilapatabagh │ │ & │ │ Chhalera Bangar │ │ 8 24.03.1988 Bhangel Noida FA No. Rs.297/- Appeals preferred │ │ Begumpur 1056/1999 by Authority in CA │ │ (Raghuraj No. 1593-1594 of │ │ Singh & Ors. v. 2011 was │ │ State of U.P. & dismissed on │ │ Anr.) 13.1.2015 │ │ With │ │ Connected │ │ appeals │ │ Decided on │ │ 19.5.2010 │ │ 9 27.2.1988 Chhalera Bangar Noida FA No. 744 of Rs. 297.50 SLP No. 17209 of │ │ Corrigendum 2001 2008 NOIDA vs. │ │ 24.6.1989 Jagdish Jagdish Chandra │ │ Chandra and dismissed on │ │ other appeals 5.2.2014 │ │ decided on │ │ 14.12.2007 │ │ 10 Notifications Names of Villages Noida FA 162 of 1987- Rs. 297/- SLP (CC No. 22480- │ │ were issued in not available from Kareem v. State 22500 of 2015) │ │ different the order but land of UP and other dismissed on │ │ years. acquired is said to connected 27.1.2016 │ │ be situated near appeals │ │ to the villages decided on │ │ Bhangel 3.12.2014 │ │ Begumpur │ │ Nagla │ │ Charandas, │ │ Geha Tilapatabagh │ │ & │ │ Chhalera Bangar │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
31. The sale instances of a smaller area have to be considered while keeping in view the principle that where a large area is the subject matter of acquisition, suitable deduction is required to be made as no prudent purchaser would purchase large extent of land on the basis of sale of a small extent in the open market. The Court thus has to consider whether the willing vendee would offer the rate at which the trial court proposes to determine the compensation. This Court has even provided for 50% deduction for development charges on the price mentioned in the sale deed.20
32. The land owners have not produced any other sale deed or award of compensation on account of acquisition of land in the northern side of National Highway-24 prior to notification in question. It could thus lead to an inference that there were not many sale transactions prior to the
20 Himmat Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2013) 16 SCC 392 notification in question. Some industries might have set up their units keeping in view the proximity to Delhi but details regarding when such units were set up and at what price, these units purchased the land have not been brought on record. As mentioned earlier, the market value has to be determined on the basis of what a purchaser is willing to pay on the date of notification. It cannot be as per any rule of thumb without any reference to the prevalent market value on the date of acquisition on record.
33. The Reference Court had applied 1/3rd deduction in respect of land situated in Village Sahibabad on the sale price of Rs.180/- per square meters of land measuring 130 square meters vide sale deed dated 26.12.1980 whereas the deduction of 40% deduction in respect of land situated in Village Jhandapur on the sale price of Rs.200/- per square meters of land measuring 50 square yards vide sale deed dated 5.5.1982 in view of the fact that the area sold was very small. The High Court has affirmed such deduction. Thus, we are of the view that the same is reasonable and adequate deduction. Therefore, the market value determined at Rs.120/- per square yard is the appropriate market value on the basis of comparable sale instances.
34. The other method to determine the market value is the judicial precedents which are proximate to the time of the acquisition and proximate to the subject matter of land acquired. A table of judicial precedents with the dates of publication of notification under Section 28 of the Act and Section 4 of the LA Act; the village where the land is situated and the authority for which the land was acquired to arrive at the market value is produced below. Such table includes the judgments referred to by Mr. Gupta that a sum of Rs.297/- per square yard is the market value of the land acquired. Sl. No. Date of publication of Notification u/s 4 Acquisition pertain(s) to Village/Villages Purpose of Acquisition Case Details Compensatio n per square yard awarded by the High Court Supreme Court
1. 26.6.1982 Makanpur UP Awasparishad FA 56 of 2005 decided on 21.7.2015 Rs. 120/- per square yard awarded by Reference Court maintained. SLP (Civil) NO. 4636 of 2016 dismissed on 28.3.2016 2 15.3.1988 Makanpur Noida FA No. 522 of Pradeep Kumar v. State of UP & Anr. and other connected appeals 21.4.2016 297/- Earlier Civil Appeal No. 1506-1507 of 2016 (SLP(Civil) Nos. 25237-25248 of 2015) – Pradeep Kumar etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr. allowed on 16.2.2016
3 12.9.1986 Makanpur, Ghaziabad Developmen t Authority FA No. 451 of (Narendra v. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 5.12.2014 Rs.115/- Civil Appeals NO. 10429-10430 of 2017 preferred by land owners was allowed on 11.9.2017 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.297/- per square yards 4 28.02.1987 Makanpur Ghaziabad FA No. 910 of 2000 (GDA v. Kashi Ram & Ors.) with Connected appeals by the land owners 13.11.2014 297/- SLP (Civil) NO. 5815 of 2015 with connected SLPs filed by GDA 5.5.2015 5 16.8.1988 Makanpur Ghaziabad FA no. 41 of Rameshwar Dayal v. State of UP And other connected appeals. Decided on 22.7.2015 Rs.160/- per square yard awarded by Reference Court maintained. Civil Appeal NO. 16960 of 2016- Jai Prakash v. State of UP allowed on 24.10.2017 Compensation enhanced to Rs. 297/- per square yard 6 19.12.1980 Chhalera Khadar Noida FA No. 310 of (Mohkam & Anr. v. State of U.P.) 16.2.2015 Rs.297/- Appeal filed by the State was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.6.2016 7 1983, 1986 and 1988 Bhangel Begumpur Noida FA NO. 564/1997 Khazan & Ors. v. State of U.P. and other connected appeals 11.10.2012 Rs.297/- SLP(C) No. 15867- 15883 of 2013 by Noida dismissed on 5.2.2014 1986, 1988, 1991 and Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilapatabagh & Chhalera Bangar 8 24.03.1988 Bhangel Begumpur Noida FA NO. 1056/1999 (Raghuraj Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.) With Connected appeals 19.5.2010 Rs.297/- Appeals preferred by Authority in CA No. 1593-1594 of 2011 was 13.1.2015 9 27.2.1988 Corrigendum 24.6.1989 Chhalera Bangar Noida FA No. 744 of Jagdish Chandra and other appeals 14.12.2007 Rs. 297.50 SLP No. 17209 of 2008 NOIDA vs. Jagdish Chandra 5.2.2014
10 Notifications were issued in different years. Names of Villages not available from the order but land acquired is said to be situated near to the villages Bhangel Begumpur Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilapatabagh & Chhalera Bangar Noida FA 162 of 1987- Kareem v. State of UP and other connected appeals 3.12.2014 Rs. 297/- SLP (CC No. 22480- 22500 of 2015) 27.1.2016
35. The order passed by this Court on 9.11.2017 for fresh determination on the basis of additional documents was based on the judgments pertaining to above-mentioned acquisitions. In terms of the order passed by this Court, no additional evidence was produced before the High Court and the submissions were confined to the material already on record. Such judgments, as discussed above, are later in time except the land situated in Chhalera Khadar, now forming part of Noida, for which notification was published on 19.12.1980. It is pertinent to note that the proximity from Delhi border would not be the determining factor but the distance between the two villages inter se would be relevant as Noida spread over a large area, has different access roads from Delhi and Ghaziabad. However, such distance has not been disclosed.
36. The High Court in Jagdish Chandra & Ors. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA & Anr.21 had determined Rs. 297/- as the market value of the land situated in Chhalera Bangar, now forming part of Noida, intended to be acquired vide notification published under Section 4 of the LA Act on 27.2.1988. The High Court had noted the advantageous location of Noida when it held that: “…Valuation of the landed property is enormously rising day by day. The location of the land, as stated, is nearer to developed area of NOIDA. The land is acquired for the purpose of making park. Neither it is required for commercial purpose nor for residential purpose. No question of largeness of the land is available. Therefore, we are not aware what is the basis of
37. The first notification for acquisition of land in Village Makanpur, the village which is located on both sides of National Highway-24, was published on 26.6.1982, for the land situated on the northern side of the National Highway, that is the notification in question.
38. In Pradeep Kumar, after remand, the High Court awarded Rs.297/- per square yard as the compensation in pursuance of notification dated 15.3.1988 of the land situated in Village Makanpur (Sr. No. 2 in the above table) for the benefit of Noida. This Court in Narendra awarded compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard for the land acquired in Village Makanpur in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act published on 12.9.1986 (Sr. No. 2 in the above table). Such land is in the area of Noida on the southern side of the National Highway.
39. The other villages, subject matter of acquisition i.e. Arthla, Jhandapur, Prahladgarhi, Mahiuddin-Re-Kanawani and Sahibabad are farther away from the National Highway than the land situated in Village Makanpur. Since the Special Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Reference Court has determined uniform compensation for the entire land acquired, therefore, we do not find that the compensation awarded of land situated in Village Makanpur on the basis of notification 4-5 years later is a reasonable yardstick for determining compensation of over 1100 acres of land in the other villages. There is no judicial precedent in respect of land situated in other five villages which are subject matter of the acquisition in the present group of appeals. The orders passed by this Court relied upon are either subsequent to the notification in question and/or for the acquisition for the purpose of planned development of Noida.
40. A compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was awarded for land acquired for the purpose of GDA vide notification dated 28.2.1987 and 16.8.1988 (Sr. No. 4 & 5 in the above table). The said acquisition was five years after the acquisition in question. The development activity initiated vide notification dated 26.6.1982 would be relevant to determine the market value on account of acquisition by virtue of the subsequent notification, but time gap of more than five years will not entail the same amount of compensation in respect of the land acquired five years earlier.
41. The compensation determined on the basis of a notification five years later cannot be a yardstick for determining compensation of the land which is subject matter of present acquisition years earlier. Still further, the High Court was not justified in observing that gaps of few years in the notification have been ignored by this Court. In fact, on the contrary, the High Court has failed to note that the date of notification for the acquisition of land for the benefit of Parishad is five years earlier than those in the judgments relied upon by the High Court.
42. In respect of land situated on northern side of National Highway, the land was acquired vide notifications dated 28.2.1987 and 12.9.1986 in the case of Narendra and Kashi; and on 16.8.1988 in the case of Jai Prakash. Whereas, on the southern side of National Highway for the benefit of Noida, the land of Village Makanpur became subject matter of acquisition vide notification dated 10.3.1988 in the case of Pradeep Kumar and on 15.3.1988 in the case of Charan Kaur.
43. For the land situated on the northern side of the National Highway for the benefit of the Parishad, the acquisition has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 4636 of 2016 on 28.3.2016. The compensation assessed in the other aforementioned cases is subsequent to the date of notification, therefore, none of the orders are determinative of the amount of compensation. Hence, the market value as determined by the High Court cannot be sustained either on the basis of the sale deeds, or on the strength of judicial orders. There is no justification of enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court i.e. Rs.120/- per square yard.
44. Consequently, the present appeals are hereby allowed. The order passed by the High Court in the appeals preferred by the land owners is set aside and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court @ Rs.120/- per square yard apart from statutory benefits is restored .............................................. J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) (HEMANT GUPTA) (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) NEW DELHI; MARCH 23, 2021.