- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. The above two appeals have been filed against the award dated 18-12-1981 passed by the Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur in reference Case No. 18 ol'1981 arising out of award No, 7 dated 30-9-1980 given by the Special Land Ac quisition Officer, Moti Jheel Kanpur con cerning village Gujaini.
(2.) THE appeal No. 285 of 1984 has been filed by the land owners whereas Ap peal No. 305 of 1985 has been filed on behalf of the State of U. P. From the side of the land owners it was alleged that compensation allowed by the Tribunal was inadequate and insuffi cient, while from the side of State of U. P. it was alleged that award contrary to law. Learned Counsel for the claimants without going into the merits of the case contended that there were several appeals of the same village and locality about which the award was given by the same Tribunal in references and against the order of the Tribunal appeals were filed before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Jus tice S. C. Mohapatra and Hon'ble Mr. Jus-lice V. P. Goel, decided the said appeals vide judgment and order dated 17-2-1995.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the claimant that because the land in question is similarly situated in the same village and locality compensation the claimants are also entitled to the (sic) as allowed in the above noted judgment of this Court. The said judgment was given in First Appeal No. 733 of 1986 the file of which was summoned for perusal and the judgment shows that six appeals were decided by single judgment The judgment also shows that the land acquired was situated in village Gujaini and compensation at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per bigha was awarded to the land owners. In the said appeals the point raised before the Division Bench of this Court was that the land owners were entitled to compensa tion at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per bigha and it was held that in absence of any material to distinguish the advantage of the land involved in the said appeals the land owners were also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per bigha. Learned Counsel for the claimants in this case argued the same point before us. To determine whether the acquired laid in dispute was similarly situated and in the same locality and same village, even a map was submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimants to show that the land was situated in the same village and in the same locality. A comparative chart was also submitted showing the plots involved in first Appeals Nos. 733 of 1986, 889 of 1987, 57 of 1986, 358 of 1987. The chart shows that plots shown in the earlier ap peals were in the same locality where the plots of appeals in questions are situated.;