Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who had filed an application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Act) for redetermination of the compensation awarded to them, have filed this petition for a direction upon New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA) to release the payment demanded by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), NOIDA (ADM (LA)) so that the application filed by them can be decided.
(2.) The records reveal that a notification under section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 5 January 1982 for acquisition of a large tract of land situated in village Chhalera Khadar, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar for planned industrial development by NOIDA. The award under section 11(1) of the Act was made on 17 December 1983 for 74-3-8 bighas of land. Reference applications were filed by 22 tenure holders including LAR No.126 of 1986 (Basanta & anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) on which reliance was placed by the petitioners in the application filed by them under section 28-A of the Act and LAR No.127 of 1986 (Banwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) that was filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. These twenty-two references were decided together by the Reference Court on 15 November 1988 and the market value of the land was enhanced. It is stated that subsequently First Appeal No.(198) of 1989 was filed by Basanta before the High Court under section 54 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The appeal was allowed by judgment dated 11 March 2015 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.297/- per sq. yard. It also transpires that First Appeal No.(196) of 1989 was also filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners It was dismissed on 13 March 1989 as it was deficiently stamped. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application after 25 years for recalling the order dated 13 March 1989 and for restoring the Appeal to its original number and to also permit them to make good the deficiency in Court fees. This application was rejected by a detailed order dated 19 February 2015 which is reproduced below : "By order dated 13.03.1989 the appeal was rejected as deficiently stamped. After a period of 25 years this application has been filed to recall the order dated 13.3.1989 and to restore the appeal to its original number and permit the appellant to supply the requisite court fee. An application to condone the delay in filing the recall application has also been filed. The only reason given in the affidavit is that the one of the appellant died in the year 1996 and his legal heirs and representatives were not aware of the status of the present first appeal. It is further stated in para 8 of the affidavit that it was only after getting information from some other villagers whose reference was decided by the Reference Court in which there was some reference of the present appeal, the present applicant came to know about the status of the appeal and thereafter they engage Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel, who has filed this application.We are not convinced with the explanation given for such a long delay of 25 years from the date of dismissal of the memo of appeal. We find that there were 5 appellants out of which only 2 have died and the remaining 3 did not take necessary steps for such a long time. Even otherwise the case having been filed in the year 1996 court fees was not made good. The memo of the appeal having been rejected in 1989, we do not find any good ground for explaining the delay of 7 years and 18 years after the death of the appellants.For all the reasons recorded above, the explanation tendered being totally unsatisfactory, the delay condonation application is accordingly rejected and consequently recall application is also rejected."
(3.) Subsequently, Special Leave to Appeal No.32863 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners in the Supreme Court. It was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4 December 2015 with the following observations : "We find no reason to entertain this Special Leave Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.However, we make it clear that the order passed by this Court or by the High Court shall not stand in the way of the petitioner pursuing his grievances under law in appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage before appropriate forum.";