B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Manu Khare, Sri Shailesh Upadhyay as well as Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh as well as Sri Raghvendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) These bunch of writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order as they involve identical question of facts and law, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) We take up the leading case being Writ Petition No. 27848 of 2018 (Shamshad Ali and another Vs. State of U.P. and others). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners is said to be the recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 197 area 0-7-0, plot no.198 area 0-9-0, total area 0-16-0 situate in village Aliwardipur/Alabadirpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. It is stated that by notification dated 22.3.1983 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) the said plots were notified for acquisition alongwith certain other plots in village Aliwardipur/Alabadirpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Thereafter a declaration was made on 23.3.1983 under section 6 of the Act, 1894 with respect of these lands. The Award was published on 28.11.1984 fixing compensation payable for the land acquired at Rs.20/- per sq. yard. It is stated that one Fateh Mohammad who was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 180 Ka area 1-9-0 situate in village Aliwardipur/Alabadirpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri being not satisfied with the Award preferred a reference under section 18 of Act, 1894 before the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer. This reference was proceeded as LAR No. 06 of 2002 (Fateh Mohd. Vs. State of U.P.). It is also stated that LAR No. 6 of 2002 was thereafter referred to Lok Adalat presided by Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar constituted under the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1987). Learned Addl. District Judge by his order dated 12.3.2016 allowed the said reference on the basis of a compromise between the parties alongwith other references being LAR No. 7 of 2002, LAR No. 8 of 2002 and LAR No. 9 of 2002 and the compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 297.50/- per sq. yard on the ground that the High Court while deciding the first appeal with respect to the said village had enhanced the compensation to Rs.297.50/- per sq. yard. When the petitioners came to know about the order of the Lok Adalat, they moved an application under section 28-A of the Act, 1894 before the A.D.M. (Land Acquisition)/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar as heirs of the previous tenure holders Niaz Mohd., Shah Mohd. and Buniyad Ali. It is also stated that the Addl. District Judge (Land Acquisition)/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar delayed consideration of the application of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners left with no other option approached the High Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4368 of 2018 (Shamshad Ali and another Vs. State of UI.P. And others). This writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by its order dated 1.2.2018 with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision on the application of the petitioners in accordance with law and in accordance with the direction contained in the judgement of a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 38674 of 2017 (Satyapal Singh and 21 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 21.9.2017. Order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 01.02.2018 reads as under:- "The petitioners claim to have filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the award made by the Reference Court in regard to the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act. The grievance is that till date the application has not been decided. ;