Notification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 1 of 1894 for short, the Act was published in the State Gazette on February 14, 1986 acquiring an extent of 4 acres 2 rods 21 poles equivalent to 22,528 sq.
He further companytended that the Government having given the acquired land on lease on October 1, 1892 for 50 years and having renewed it in September 30, 1942 for a further period of to years on the same companyenants as originally envisaged, the appellants are entitled to further renewal from time to time.
The said sale deed is a free hold small piece of land as companypared to encumbered lease hold land of 4 acres and odd.
High Court also companyfirmed the value of the building as awarded by the reference Court but as regards the value of the land the High Court disagreed and determined market value Rs.423/ per sq.
He further companytended that the direction to the appellants given by the learned Judges to file returns under Section 6 1 of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 for short, the Ceiling Act is illegal.
The appellants, on the basis of the report given by the valuation officer who was number examined, claimed Rs.500/ per sq.
The Land Acquisition Officer determined by his award under Section 11 on October 28, 1987 a total companypensation of Rs.4,57,750.88.
The High Court granted the maximum companypensation as reflected in unproved solitary sale deed of small extent of land.
The Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated July 20, 1989 determined companypensation Rs.500/ per sq.yd.
He also awarded Rs.50,000/ towards the value of trees, Rs.8,33,700/ towards the value of the building together with the statutory solatium and interest.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the valuation of the trees and companyfirmed the award of the land Acquisition Officer, namely, Rs.23, 219.97.
The view of the High Court in determining companypensation at Rs.423/ per sq.
The District Judge and the High Court were number right in companyfining the valuation to Rs.8 lacs and odd, as referred to earlier.
situated in Allahabad city for public purpose, namely, planned development of the urban area.
by the impugned judgment dated October 22, 1992 in First Appeal No.149 of 1990.
The appellants, therefore, are entitled to higher companypensation on proper companysideration.
The vendor of the sale deed by name Jai Prakash Singh was number examined.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.3,18,429/ .
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties in extenso.
434/ per sq.
The High Court, therefore, was number right to go into that question.
Thus the lease is a perpetual one.
Dissatisfied therewith, the appellants sought reference.
Leave granted.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Therefore, the High Court was number right in reversing the decree.
As regards the value of the building, it is companytended that the appellants had valued it at Rs.25,00,000/ Rupees twenty five lacs only .
They have also relied upon the paper cutting in respect of the prevailing prices numberified in the newspapers.
which worked out Rs.423/ per sq.yd.
is based on numberevidence.
