Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2537 (ALL)

RAGHUVIR v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-07-21

KRISHNA MURARI, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—All the connected appeals are based on same set of facts raising common questions of law and are directed against the same award deciding the references hence they have been clubbed together and decided by the common judgment. 2. These appeals have been filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation determined by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide judgment and award dated 7.10.2003 passed on Land Acquisition References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ‘Act’). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are not at issue that various reference under Section 18 of the Act were connected and decided by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide judgment and award dated 7.10.2003 and the same was subject-matter of challenge in various appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement as well as by NOIDA. All the said appeals were clubbed together and the leading appeal was First Appeal No. 196 of 2011 and were decided by a Division Bench by a common judgment and order dated 19.9.2014 holding that claimants, whose land is situate at village Mamoora, are held to be entitled for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per sq. yard alongwith all statutory benefits, solatium, interest and additional interest as provided under Section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, Division Bench allowed all the first appeals filed by the claimants and those filed by NOIDA were dismissed. 4. In view of the above, all the claimants in the present appellants are also held to be entitled for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per sq. yard alongwith all statutory benefits, solatium, interest and additional interest as provided under Section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. Accordingly, all the appeals stand allowed. 6. In some of these appeals, some of the claimants/appellants have died and substitution application have been filed to bring on record the legal representatives. Delay, if any, in filing the substitution application is condoned and all the substitution applications are allowed. However, we make it clear that if there is any dispute regarding the legal representative or the apportionment of claim of compensation, the same may be put forward and considered by the Land Acquisition Authority. 7. Delay, if any, in filing the substitution application is condoned and all the substitution applications are allowed. However, we make it clear that if there is any dispute regarding the legal representative or the apportionment of claim of compensation, the same may be put forward and considered by the Land Acquisition Authority. 7. In some of the appeals, the deficiency as reported by the Stamp Reporter has been made good. The defect stands removed. These applications also stand allowed. 8. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs.