Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 962 (ALL)

S. G. P. G. I. , LKO. v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-04-10

A.P.SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Vinayak Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tiwari for the respondent No. 5. 2. This petition questions the correctness of the order dated 27.6.1994, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow whereby he has proceeded to dispose of the application of respondent No. 5 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 awarding enhanced compensation on the strength of the decision given in reference dated 19.12.1989 whereby in the case of other tenure holders the compensation amount had been increased. 3. The impugned order records that notices were issued and an objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner, a copy of the said objection has been filed as Annexure 2-A and in the last paragraph of the objection it has been stated that the quality of the land that was subject-matter of reference was inferior in nature and the land of respondent No. 5 being of superior quality, such enhancement would not be applicable ipso facto. It has been further stated in the objection that since the respondent No. 5 has filed a reference under Section 18 for a separate reference the application under Section 28-A would not be maintainable. This has been turned down by the impugned order holding that the respondent No. 5 has also got his application under Section 18 withdrawn as not pressed and, therefore, the application under Section 28-Awould be maintainable. Secondly since the decision in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi has been rendered after considering the relevant material on record there is no occasion to take a different view in the matter. Consequently, the amount has been enhanced appropriately in accordance with law. The respondent No. 5 has already received the compensation that had been awarded under the award. 4. In order to satisfy ourselves, we summoned the records of First Appeal No. 21 of 1995 in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi that had been filed in the year 1995 after the filing of this writ petition. This First Appeal (defective) No. 21 of 1995 has already been dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.5.2009. Thus, the order passed in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi has become final. 5. This First Appeal (defective) No. 21 of 1995 has already been dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.5.2009. Thus, the order passed in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi has become final. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts that emerge, we find no error in the impugned order inasmuch as the application under Section 28-A has been considered keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the same was also maintainable as the respondent No. 5 had not pressed his application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. Consequently, none of the grounds raised in the writ petition are available. The petition lacks merit, which is accordingly Rejected.