- (1.) R. P. Misra, J. Having heard Sri A. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the writ petition was allowed in open Court on 6-2- 2006, but the reasons were to follows. The reasons are as under:
(2.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order dated 11-9-2003 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, the respondent No. 3 is sought to be quashed. In short the fact relevant for determination of actual controversy involved in this case is that by a notification dated 30-8-1985 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the "act"), land of the petitioner and other persons was acquired for construction of Ram Nagar-Mughalsarai Bye-pass Road. The notification under Section 6 of the Act with regard to the aforesaid acquisition was issued on 31-8-1985. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi gave the award on 7-1-1970. Admittedly, no application was filed by the petitioner before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act. One Jhillu, one of the land- holders made an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re- determination of the amount of compensation in accordance with law, upon which reference No. 133 of 1992, Jhillu v. Collector and Ors. , was made and ultimately the aforesaid reference was allowed on 24-5-1993.
(3.) ON 14-7-1993, petitioner also made an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation, on the basis of award dated 24-5-1993 of the Court in aforesaid reference No. 133 of 1992, Jhillu v. Collector and Ors. , with regard to the land covered by the same notification but by the impugned order dated 11-9-2003, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent No. 3, as not maintainable. The relief sought by this writ petition is that the respondents may be directed to redetermine the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner, on the basis of award of the Court dated 24-5-1993 passed in reference No. 133 of 1992, Jhillu v. Collector and Ors. , and to pay the compensation to the petitioner also on the same rate on which it has been paid to Jhillu i. e. Rs. 4,000 per decimal.;