Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) LATE Smt. Vishvi Devi was owner of plot No. 29 area 0.67 acres which was acquired under Land Acquisition Act. Certain amount was offered by the S.L.O. as market value and solatium etc. Dissatisfied with the offer late Sri Vishvi Devi requested S.L.O. to make reference to the District Judge, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was accordingly made. The District Judge Ballia decided the reference (L.A. Reference No. 44 of 1981) on 30.09.1991 and determined the entire compensation payable as Rs. 5.66 lacs and odd. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the reference before the District Judge the original applicant Smt. Vishvi Devi had died and had been substituted by her two sons and two daughters. One of the sons is Petitioner No. 1. The other son is Respondent No. 2 Sri Kashi Nath Prasad and two daughters are Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Yashoda Devi & Vidya Devi (Petitioner No. 2 has died and has been substituted by her legal representatives). Thereafter, two execution cases were filed one by Respondent No. 2 which was registered as execution case No. 10 of 1991 claiming the whole awarded amount (para 9 of writ petition). The other execution case was filed by the Petitioner No. 1 which was registered as execution case No. 4 of 1992 claiming half of the awarded amount. In the execution case filed by Respondent No. 2, Petitioner No. 1 filed objection under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure which were registered as case No. 168 of 1992. (The State deposited Rs. 5.94 lacs as total payable compensation till the date of deposit, adding interest to the total awarded compensation by the D.J.). Respondent No. 2 filed two documents purported to have been executed by his sisters i.e. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 06.04.1992 and 08.04.1992, true copies of which are Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 of the writ petition. It is mentioned in the said documents that the executants were transferring their right/share in the decree(award) in favour of their real brother Kashinath (Respondent No. 2) through the said deeds.
(3.) HOWEVER after about five years both the ladies changed their stand and asserted that they had no share in the land hence entire awarded compensation shall be given to both their brothers in equal share. Annexure 5 to the writ petition is an application by Smt. Vidwati Devi Petitioner No. 3, dated 22.02.1997, in para 5 of which it was mentioned that the applicant had no concern with the compensation awarded in respect of acquired plot (i.e. plot No. 29) and she did not want to take that. It was further stated therein that the amount of her share in the compensation might be given to both the brothers (Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2) in equal share. Annexure VI A is her affidavit sworn on 17.05.1997 to the same effect. Annexure 6 is copy of similar application by original Petitioner No. 2 late Smt. Yashoda Devi dated 19.05.1997 and her affidavit sworn on 17.05.1997. 5. The learned II A.D.J. Ballia decided both the execution cases and the objection under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure through judgment and order dated 14.09.1998 Annexure 10 to the writ petition which has been challenged through this writ petition. The learned A.D.J. held that the share of the ladies/sisters should go to Respondent No. 2 hence he must get 3/4 of the awarded compensation and Petitioner No. 1 shall get 1/4.;