Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1426 (ALL)

SWAROOP KUMARI BAKSHI v. STATE OF U P

2008-07-25

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, U.K.DHAON

body2008
U. K. DHAON AND BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, JJ. Heard Sri Alok Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14. 3. 2008 passed by the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow by which the request of the petitioner to consolidate Misc. Case No. 4 of 2003 along with Misc. Case No. 6 of 1983 was refused. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that reference petition No. 6 of 1983 filed by the petitioner is against the award dated 31. 3. 1975 and reference petition No. 4 of 2003 preferred by Raj Kumar Bakshi is also against the award dated 31. 3. 1975 with respect to the same land. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reference under section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act is also pending before the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal in which the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation is involved. 3. The learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 14. 3. 2008 passed by opposite party No. 2. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. The petitioner has alleged that Misc. Case No. 6 of 1983 filed by the petitioner is against the award dated 31. 3. 1975. The reference petition filed by Sri Raj Kumar Bakshi under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 2003 is also against the award dated 31. 3. 1975. 6. The petitioner has also stated in the petition that a reference petition under section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act is also pending before the oppo site party No. 2. Order IV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same Court, and the Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may by order direct their joint trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings. 7. The learned Presiding Officer of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal ought to have consolidated the Misc. cases pending before it against the award dated 31. 3. 1975. 8. The impugned order dated 14. 7. The learned Presiding Officer of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal ought to have consolidated the Misc. cases pending before it against the award dated 31. 3. 1975. 8. The impugned order dated 14. 3. 2008 of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal is legally not sustainable. In the results the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 14. 3. 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow set aside. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to decide Misc. Case No. 6 of 1983 alongwith Misc. Case No. 4 of 2003. Petition Allowed. .