Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1044 (ALL)

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NATTHA

2010-03-30

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2010
JUDGMENT RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.--This first appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1854, has been filed against the judgment dated 6.10.2004 and the decree dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 35 of 1998, Nattha and another v. State of U.P. and another, wherein the compensation under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been enhanced to Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. from Rs. 1.41 per sq. ft., awarded by the Collector under section 11 of the Act. 2. It appears that earlier Sri Krishna Chandra was the Counsel of for the appellant but subsequently he was removed from the panel of the L.D.A. and as such he did not appear before the Court. The Court by orders dated 14.7.2009 and 9.9.2009, had issued notices to the L.D.A. to engage another Counsel. 3. By office report dated 11.3.2010, it was informed that card notice was issued to the L.D.A. on 6.10.2009 for engaging another lawyer, but no one had filed power on behalf of the L.D.A. By order dated 16.3.2010, the learned Counsel for the respondents was directed to serve the L.D.A. outside the Court for which dasti summon was issued by the office, fixing the next date i.e., 30.3.2010. 4. Today, the learned Counsel for the respondents has filed an affidavit of service, stating therein that the appellant was served on 25.3.2010 and the appellant has also been informed on 25.3.2010 that the next date fixed in this case in 30.3.2010. 5. Today, Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, who is also the Standing Counsel for the L.D.A., was, therefore, called upon to appear in the matter, who instructed Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Advocate to appear in this matter on his behalf. Hence, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla holding brief of Sri D.K. Upadhyaya has put in appearance on behalf of the L.D.A. 6. Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla holding brief of Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Hence, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla holding brief of Sri D.K. Upadhyaya has put in appearance on behalf of the L.D.A. 6. Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla holding brief of Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the controversy involved in the present appeal has been settled by the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009, passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals filed by the L.D.A. relating to the same place and arising out of the same notification issued by the State Government for acquisition of the land and against the same award. 8. In this regard, Sri V.K. Srivastava, has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009, passed by this Court in the First Appeal No. 103 of 2007, Lucknow Development Authority v. Smt. Raj Kumari and another and other connected first appeals. 9. The land of the respondents was situated at village Ujariyaon bearing Khasra No. 323, area 1-19-0, Khasra No. 324/01 area 1-0-0 and Khasra No. 1050/1 area 0-9-0, the total area of which is 3-8-0, which was acquired by the State for the appellant under scheme of 'Ujariyaon Awasiya Yojana Part-II'. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, had awarded the compensation of the said land determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 1.41 per sq. ft. 10. Feeling aggrieved from the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents had filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was decided on 6.10.2004 and the learned Tribunal had enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 1.41 per sq. ft. to Rs. 4.6.0 per sq. ft. 11. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the learned Court below had decided the reference relying on the judgment dated 16.12.2002, passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 28 of 1997, Swargasllaram Sakhari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P. and others, wherein the market rate of the land was determined at the rate of 4.60 per sq. ft. Case No. 28 of 1997, Swargasllaram Sakhari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P. and others, wherein the market rate of the land was determined at the rate of 4.60 per sq. ft. The land of the 'Swargasharam Sahkari Awas Samiti', was acquired under the same scheme of 'Ujanyaon Awasiya Yojana Part-II, in which the land of the respondents has been acquired and both the lands were adjacent to each other, having similar potential value and the same market value. The appellant has paid the entire decretal amount to the 'Swargasharam Sahkari Awas Samiti'. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has very candidly admitted that the controversy involved in the present appeal is the same as decided in a bunch of first appeals or the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009, passed in the First Appeal No. 103 of 2007 and other connected matters. In First Appeal No. 103 of 2007 and other connected matters, this Court has held as under: "As far as the merits of the case are concerned, this Court has viewed these judgments in the light of a recent judgments of Hon'ble Ape Court in Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shalik Azam Saheb etc.1 and other relevant factors which are relevant for determining the amount of compensation such as potentiality, location and situation of land, developments inside in the area and facilities provided etc. It is of the view that on the merits also no case is made out to interfere." 13. The land of the respondents which was acquired relates to the same village, same notification issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same award, hence relying upon the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the present first appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 14. I have also considered the cross-objections, which have been registered as Cross Objection No.4 of 2005 in the above noted first appeal and I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded to the respondents, as determined by the judgment under challenge, was adequate, hence the cross-objections having no force are hereby rejected. 15. The First Appeal No. 13 of 2005, is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands discharged. The appellant is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents as determined by the impugned judgment and order dated 6.10.2004, passed in Misc. 15. The First Appeal No. 13 of 2005, is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands discharged. The appellant is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents as determined by the impugned judgment and order dated 6.10.2004, passed in Misc. Case No. 35 of 1998, Nattha and another v. State of U.P. and others. The respondents No.1 and 2, shall be permitted to withdrawing the remaining amount deposited in this Court under the orders dated 24.8.2005. F.A. Dismissed. Cross-objection Rejected.