- (1.) These appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1894") read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure have arisen from judgement and decree dated 16.9.1998 and 29.9.1998 respectively passed by Sri Devendra Kumar Jain, XIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Original Suit No.48 of 1996 along with Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as "LAR") No.2 of 1996 under Section 30 of Act 1894. Court below has dismissed suit and answered Reference holding that defendant-respondents are entitled for compensation of disputed acquired land.
(2.) Dispute relates to Gata No.3 area 5-10-10 (pakka) situated at village Yakubpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District Ghaziabad. The disputed land initially belongs to plaintiffs-appellants. For acquisition of land in dispute and some other, a Notification dated 18.6.1991 under Section 4(1) of Act 1894 was published in U.P. Gazette dated 20.7.1991 by State Government and thereafter declaration dated 18.12.1991 under Section 6/17 of Act 1894 was published in U.P. Gazette dated 11.1.1992. Pursuant thereto, possession of disputed land was taken by Collector on 30.3.1992. While determination of compensation was pending before Special Land Acquisition Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition, Noida, Ghaziabad) (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO"), defendant-respondents claimed to have purchased right of compensation in respect of disputed land vide sale-deed dated 9.2.1994 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- . SLAO, vide award dated 13.11.1995, determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 63.26 per square yard besides 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation and interest as per provisions of Act 1894. The plaintiff-appellants and defendant-respondents both claimed compensation of disputed land. Defendant-respondents filed an application dated 25.3.1994 (Ext.A - 4), claiming their right for compensation subject to objection for enhancement of market value, relying on sale-deed dated 9.2.1994. Plaintiff-appellants instituted Original Suit No. 48 of 1996 seeking declaration of sale-deed dated 9.2.1994 as void and illegal, contending that they have not executed any sale-deed, whatsoever, and said sale-deed is nothing but a forged, manufactured and fabricated document having got prepared by impersonation and presenting some other persons.
(3.) With respect to dispute of entitlement for compensation, Collector made a Reference under Section 30 and the same was registered with Court below as LAR No.2 of 1996. Original Suit No.48 of 1996 and LAR No.2 of 1996, both, have been decided by a common judgement. Trial Court formulated following five issues in Original Suit No.48 of 1996:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (1) Whether the sale deed dated 09.02.1994 was executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendants? If so, its effect? ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (2) Whether the suit is beyond jurisdiction of this Court? ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (3) Whether suit is undervalued? ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (4) Whether Court fee paid is insufficient? ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (5) To which relief, plaintiff is entitled? (English translation by Court) In LAR No.2 of 1996, Court below formulated following three issues: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (1) Whether the sale-deed/tendered deed dated 09.02.1994 was not executed by the petitioners? In case of the same being executed, its effect? ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (2) Effect of the order dated 06.06.1994 passed by the ADM (LA), Noida? ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (3). Who is entitled to get compensation?" (English translation by Court) ;