S.N.Srivastava - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, Geater N.O.I.D.A. Industrial Development Authority, district Gautam Budh Nagar challenged impugned orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 17.10.2003 and 3.12.2003 in Reference No. 120 of 2002 arising out of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mange Ram v. State.
(2.) IN Reference No. 120 of 2002, statement of Ameen-Jai Kishan Sharma has already been recorded as a witness. An application has been moved by the petitioner to cross-examine Jai Kishan Sharma-Ameen (witness) on the ground that actually petitioner-Greater N.O.I.D.A. INdustrial Development Authority is the aggrieved authority and it is the Geater N.O.I.D.A. INdustrial Development Authority who will pay the compensation and, therefore, it has right to cross-examine all the witnesses in order to get the compensation determined by the authority competent. Said application was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioner-Greater N.O.I.D.A. Industrial Development Authority is the acquiring body who will be affected in case Ameen (witness) is not cross-examined for the purposes of determination of correct compensation as the payment of compensation has to be made by the petitioner. It is further urged by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Greater N.O.I.D.A. Industrial Development Authority, that the impugned order rejecting application of the petitioner to cross-examine relevant witness (Ameen) suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine concerned Ameen (witness) and other witnesses who may appear in the Witness Box in the matter of determination of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He also made a statement at the bar that objection of petitioner has already been filed in References as back as on 26.3.2002 including in Reference No. 120 of 2002. He relied upon case laws in U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, AIR 1995 SC 724 and Sohanlal and others v. Gulab Chand, AIR 1966 Raj 229 (V 58 C 59) in support of his case.
(3.) IN reply to the same, Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, on the strength of paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit, stated that in case the Court sets aside the orders dated 17.10.2003 and 3.12.2003 and directs court below to permit cross-examination of D.W. 1, respondent No. 4 has no objection. He lastly urged that as the matter is pending since 2002, the same may be directed to be decided as early as possible. Learned standing counsel also supported impugned orders.;