- (1.) Heard Sri Vinayak Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tiwari for the respondent no. 5.
(2.) This petition questions the correctness of the order dated 27.6.1994, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow whereby he has proceeded to dispose of the application of respondent no. 5 under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 awarding enhanced compensation on the strength of the decision given in reference dated 19.12.1989 whereby in the case of other tenure holders the compensation amount had been increased.
(3.) The impugned order records that notices were issued and an objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner, a copy of the said objection has been filed as Annexure no. 2-A and in the last paragraph of the objection it has been stated that the quality of the land that was subject matter of reference was inferior in nature and the land of respondent no. 5 being of superior quality, such enhancement would not be applicable ipso facto. It has been further stated in the objection that since the respondent no. 5 has filed a reference under section 18 for a separate reference the application under section 28-A would not be maintainable. This has been turned down by the impugned order holding that the respondent no. 5 has also got his application under section 18 withdrawn as not pressed and, therefore, the application under section 28-A would be maintainable. Secondly since the decision in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi has been rendered after considering the relevant-2-material on record there is no occasion to take a different view in the matter. Consequently, the amount has been enhanced appropriately in accordance with law. The respondent no. 5 has already received the compensation that had been awarded under the award.;