V.M.Sahai, Sabhajeet Yadav - (1.) -By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.4.1987, passed by respondent No. 2, contained in Annexure-2 of the writ petition, wrongly mentioned as Annexure-4 of the writ petition, whereby the application of petitioner dated 19.1.1987 under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of award of the Court had been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner has stated in the said application that the father of petitioner namely Ram Karan S/o Musai was recorded tenure holder of plot No. 39-M, ad-measuring 13 biswa and 8 dhoor situated in Village Mahboobpur Pargana Bhadohi Tehsil Gyanpur, district Varanasi. THE aforesaid land was acquired vide notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published in Gazette of U. P. on 3.4.1982. It is stated that after said notification the father of petitioner namely Ram Karan died and in his place the name of petitioner was mutated in revenue records. It has also been stated in para 4 of the writ petition that vide same notification the land of several other persons of other village was also acquired. Some of persons whose land had been acquired under the same notification had made application under Section 18 of the Act for making reference before the Court. In one of the such Reference Case No. 317 of 1983, Dukhi v. Collector, Varanasi, decided by the Court on 19.12.1986, the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs. 2,000 per biswa to Rs. 15,000 per biswa. On receipt of such information, the petitioner immediately obtained the judgment in reference case of Dukhi and moved an application on 19,1.1987 before the Collector, Varanasi under Section 28A of the said Act within the prescribed period claiming that the amount of compensation in reference case of Dukhi has been enhanced, therefore, on that basis the petitioner may also be paid excess amount of compensation by enhancing the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer alongwith enhanced rate of solatium and other consequential benefits admissible under the provisions of Section 28A of the Act but instead of redetermining the compensation of petitioner on that basis under Section 28A of the Act the Collector/respondent No. 2 has rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 14th April, 1987, hence this writ petition. In support of his case, the petitioner has also filed supplementary-affidavit annexing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 11th February, 1982, published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette on 3rd April, 1982, as Annexure-1 to the supplementary-affidavit and judgment and order passed by District Judge, Varanasi in land acquisition Reference Case No. 317/83, Dukhi v. Collector, Varanasi, on 19.12.1986 as Annexure-2 of the supplementary-affidavit filed in the writ petition. Although no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of State Government but learned standing counsel for the respondents present in the Court has made serious attempt to justify the order impugned in the writ petition. Since the writ petition is old one of the year 1990 and the order which we propose to pass in the writ petition need not necessarily require counter-affidavit to be filed on behalf of State Government, therefore, instead of granting further time to the learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit, we have proceeded to hear the case on merit on the basis of materials available on record. At this juncture, it is also necessary to point out that the earlier land in question belonged to the district Varanasi but on carvation of the new district Sant Ravidas Nagar, the land in question came in the district Sant Ravidas Nagar.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that rejection of said application of petitioner on the ground that the land of petitioner was situated in different village and was part of different award is wholly erroneous and misconceived for the simple reason that under the provisions of Section 28A of the Act the relevant consideration for maintaining the application is that as to whether the land in respect of which redetermination of compensation is claimed is covered by same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act and persons in question are also interested and aggrieved by the award of the Collector notwithstanding that they had not made application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act and further the Court in reference of land of another person covered by same notification has allowed the compensation in excess of amount awarded by Collector under Section 11 of the Act. It is immaterial as to whether the land in question in respect of which the application under Section 28A of the Act has been moved belongs to the same village or situated in different villages and forms part of the same award which has been subject-matter of the reference before the Court or of different award. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention on the provisions of Section 28A of the Act.;