Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Naveen Sinha, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, Sri Yatindra, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
(2.) These appeals were heard at length on 23.11.2016 and 24.11.2016. Today, an affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.2 has been filed pursuant to the order dated 24.11.2016. In the aforesaid affidavit, the respondent No.2 has not disclosed the entire desired information but merely filed copies of government order dated 07.03.1987, the letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 23.03.1990 bearing approval of the District Magistrate dated 25.03.1990, circular of the Secretary, Revenue dated 14.05.1990 and copy of the award. FACTS OF THE CASE:-
(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 22.08.1989 published in the U.P. Gazette on 25.08.1989, land measuring 331.85 acres of village Piprola-Ahmadpur, 282.14 acres of village Kishurhai and 147.52 acres of village Muklapur, District Shahjahanpur, total 761.51 acres were acquired for the present appellants through defendant respondent No.3 (U.P.S.I.D.C.) for planned development. Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 20.09.1989. Possession was taken on 10.01.1990. Subsequently, an area of 3.90 acres of village Piprola Ahmadpur and 1.64 acres of village Muklapur, total 5.54 acres was reduced. Thus, total 755.97 acres land was acquired for which award was made by the S.L.A.O. Interim compensation being 80% of the proposed market value of Rs.55,000/- per acre for lands along the roadside of village Piprola Ahmadpur measuring 58.07 acres, was paid to the tenure holders in terms of the provisions of Section 17(3A) of the Act. With respect to the rest of the area, interim compensation was awarded but neither there is any description of valuation in the impugned judgment nor in the award of the S.L.A.O. that at what rates, the interim compensation to others, were paid. For the purposes of interim compensation, value of the acquired land was determined on the basis of minimum value provided by clause 6 of G.O. No.7-4(9)-86-114-Revenue-13, dated 07.03.1987, which is reproduced below: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;