- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. The above four first appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The learned Counsel for the parties jointly agreed that a common question of law is involved in these appeals and they can be disposed of on the said common question. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these four cases the facts of first appeal No. 281 of 1992 are being taken into account as the arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties in this appeal only and they submitted that the said arguments cover the remaining appeals also. The brief facts of the case are as follows.
(2.) IT arises out of L. A. Case No. 121 of 1987 decided on 13th of November, 1991 alongwith other land acquisition cases filed by Amar Singh and two cases by Smt. Usha Singh being L. A. Case Nos. 115 of 1987, 120 of 1987 and 122 of 1987 respectively. A parcel of land measuring 130. 35 acres of village Mathura Bangar was acquired by the State Government for the development of residential colony of U. P. State Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow which included 35. 01 acres of land of village Mathura Bangar involved in these appeals. The compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced by the Reference Court, namely, District Judge Mathura by the judgment under appeal. Although in the memo of appeal the enhancement of the compensation by the Reference Court has been challenged but during the course of the argument enhancement of the compensation was not pressed by Shri Shri Kant, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is, therefore, not necessary to notice in detail the facts concerning the market value of the land involved in these appeals on the date of relevant notification issued under Section 28 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As many as sixteen grounds have been raised in the memo of appeal but the learned Counsel for the appellant did not advance any argument with reference thereto, rather he did not press any of the grounds raised in the memo of the appeal. However, he has raised a new ground/argument in these appeals that the reference application was not maintainable by the claimant respondents as they have purchased a mere right to sue from the original claimants before the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as submitted by Shri Shri Kant, the learned Counsel for the appellant. The said argument was built up on the basis of a document paper No. 4-C, which is a copy of the report submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Dwitiya) U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Kamla Nagar, Agra, under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. At the tail end of the said report under the column No. 10 headed as Special Particulars (Vishesh Vivaran) it has been mentioned that the original Bhoomidhars of the acquired plots after obtaining the permission from Settlement Officer Consolidation have sold 1/4 share in favour of the person who has sought the reference for a sum of Rs. 17, 000/-, by means of sale-deed dated 16th of November, 1985 Right to receive compensation alongwith other rights has been sold for a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in favour of the person who has sought reference. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the said sale by the original land owners is not permissible in law in as much as a mere right to sue has been transferred and such transfer is impermissible under Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. Strong reliance particularly on paragraph 18 of the Agra Development Authority v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2004 (1) JCLR 1083 (All) : 2004 (3) AWC 2195, by the learned Counsel for the appellants.
(3.) THE case was initially heard on 22nd of September, 2003 and the following order was passed: "shri Sri Kant, the learned-Counsel for the appellant at the very outset submitted that he is pressing the appeal on one point namely that the claimant respondents were not entitled to make any reference application before the Reference Court. Elaborating it, it was submitted that the claimant respondents purchased only a mere right to sue and not an actionable claim. Page 44 of the paper book was referred in support of his submission which is a copy of the report wherein under column 10 it is mentioned that the claimant respondents purchased 1/4 share from Ram Lal In the disputed property by means of the sale deed dated 16th of November, 1995 for a sum of Rs. 17,000/- only while under the award a sum of Rs. 87,828/- has been awarded. Evidently the said point was not raised either by the Reference Court or in the memo of the appeal. Smt. Sunita Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that she has been taken by surprise and needs time to examine the case from the said angle. As jointly prayed list on 3rd of October, 2006. " It was taken up on 3rd of October 2006 on which date the arguments were concluded.;