- (1.) Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondents and perusal the record. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that in order to implement a scheme known as "Kanpur Road City Extension Scheme Part-I (Herein after referred to as 'Scheme') a notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued on 24.8.1976 and 20.11.1976 respectively. In the said scheme, land of the appellants measuring 2 bigha, 5 bishwa and 18 bishwanshi was acquired and compensation of Rs. 0.68 paisa per sq. fit has been given by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said fact, appellants filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Lucknow registered as Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 14 of 1982, Fekka and another v. State of U.P. and others. By an order dated 21.10.1982 compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 1/- sq. fit in respect to appellants' land (2 bighas, 15 bishwa and 18 bishwanshi equivalent to 76,093 sq. ft.) other relief as mentioned claimed therein were also granted.
(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed the present first appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that against the same notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands belongs to Faijaz Ahmad situate in same village has been acquired. Initially the competent authority has granted Rs. 0.68 per sq. ft. Thereafter by a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, enhanced to Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. Lucknow Development Authority challenged the said order before this Court by filing First Appeal No. 76 of 2006, Lucknow Development Authority v. Faijaz Ahmad and others, 2010 28 LCD 1223 dismissed by Judgment and order dated 28.4.2010. The said judgment is , relevant portion is quoted as under: "Learned Counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted before this Court that with respect to the same notification and same award relating to the land situated in village Behsa, as in the case of respondents, the appellant had entered into agreements with some land owners for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. The Tribunal, while dealing with the controversy, had framed issues covering all the points put forth before it for adjudication. The Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant factors which were necessary for assessing the market value and the quantum of compensation admissible to the land owners. Tribunal has dealt with various exemplars and had also taken into account the location of the land. The land in dispute was having all the necessary civic amenities and was well connected with the Highway as well as easily approachable. The exemplars which had been cited were taken into account. Scrutinizing these facts in the light of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Judgment in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bangalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahi, 2002 47 AllLR 320, it is amply clear that the Tribunal had carefully appreciated various factors and passed a well considered, reasoned and a speaking judgment, which in my opinion, does not require any interference. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the market value fixed by the learned Tribunal with respect to the land in question was just and proper and was as per the market rate prevailing at that time. There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.";