P. P. Gupta. J. - (1.) ON 11-11-92 this appeal was heard by me when the following order was passed "In the result the preliminary objection succeeds and the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Now I proceed to give reasons for the order.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 381 of the Nagar Mahapalika Act. A preliminary objection on behalf of the respondents regarding maintainability of the appeal has been raised. Learned counsel for both the parties were heard at length and the record of the case was also perused. It has been brought to my notice that this present appeal is not maintainable in view of the provision of section 381 (3) of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1939.
(3.) IT was admitted before me that the decretal amount, as per order of the Reference Court, was not deposited before filing of the appeal. In such circumstances, in my view, the appeal is not maintainable. A Division Bench of this Court, of which I was one of the members. in First Appeal No. 921 of 1988 State of U. P. v. Smt. Mithlesh, 1991 ALJ 516, has also taken a similar view and has rejected the memo of appeal on account of non-compliance of section 381 (3) of the aforesaid Adhiniyam. The Special Leave Petition No 2004 of 1991 filed against this order was dismissed on 8-7-1991 by the Apex Court This decision has also subsequently been followed in First Appeal No. 214 of 1982 and First Appeal No. 115 of 1982. The appellant also raised a contention that since the awarded amount of compensation has been deposited, through subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 381 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, stood complied with and, on this score, the appeal cannot be dismissed as non-maintainable. To meet this contention, the prime question is what is the meaning of expression ''lie" and whether subsequent deposit can cure the defect ?;