R.K.MAHAJAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ peti­tion filed by the petitioner for issuance of the a writ in the nature of certiorari quash­ing the impugned orders dated 22-9-1987 and 2-3-1992 (Annexure Nos. 2, 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 4, 2 and 4 respectively. It has been further prayed that the respon­dents be commanded not to give effect to the aforesaid impugned orders.
(2.) IN order to understand the con­troversy involved in this case the following dates are relevant: -Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 8-9-1975. - Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 8-9- 1975. - The Writ petition which was filed to challenge the notifications was dismissed on 10-3-1978. - Possession of the land to the petitioner was transferred on 22-3- 1 978. -Award by the S.L.A.O. was passed on 22-9-86 after hearing the objections of both the parties. -An application was moved on behalf of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mauranipur, Dis­trict Jhansi for the purpose of referring the matter of the Court for determination of compensation on 29-1-1987. -On 23-6-1987 application aforesaid was rejected by the Land Reforms Commissioner. -On 4-8-1988 reference was made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisi­tion Act pertaining to the dispute of claim of compensation by respective share holders. Case was registered as Misc. Case No. 188 of 1988. Collector moved an application before the Dis­trict Judge seeking return of reference. -On 19-11-1988 reference under Section 30 returned to the Collector, Jhansi by the District Judge, Jhansi. -Writ Petition was filed by respondent and it was decided on 19-3-1991 with a direction to the Collector, Jhansi to decide the matter of appoint­ment within six months. It appears that Notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were issued acquiring 19 plots measuring 46.83 acres in Village Maukhas, Tehsil and Pargana Mauranipur, District Jhansi for the construction of market yard. It appears that the writ petition was filed by the respondent earlier and stay order was granted on 25-9-1975 and it remain operative till 1-3-1978. Possession was also taken by Mandi Samiti on 22/24-3-1978 after dismissal of the writ petition on 10-3-1978. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 22-9-1986 on the basis of exemplar of a similar plot No. 2103 measuring 40 x 20 square feet which was sold with for Rs. 1,000/- and total compensation was determined with solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% which comes to Rs. 50,21,588.83 paise on the basis of belt system. The award was passed after eleven years. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken unreasonable delay in passing in award i.e. within two years of the enforce­ment of the Act 68 of 1984. The solatium @ 30% and the interest @ 12% from the date of possession 22/24-3-1978 has been chal­lenged. It appears that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 18(3) of the U.P. Amendment Act (Act XXII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. XII of 1954) before the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Land Reforms Commissioner (Member of the Board of Revenue, Lucknow) for referring the matter to the Court. The order of the Land Acquisition Officer was chal­lenged requesting that the matter may be referred by the Collector to the competent Court by way of reference. It is alleged that the ground was taken that the land was "Bunjar" and the valuation cannot be more than Rs. 1500/- per acre.
(3.) IT appears that the respondent No. 2 by means of order dated 23-6-1987 rejected the application on the ground that award made by the Collector under Section 25 of the Act cannot be reduced and it would be futile to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act No. XII of 1954 vide Annexure No. 4 dated 23-6-87. It is alleged that the right has been given under Section 18(3) of Act No. XII of 1954 for making reference to the Collector by the Land Acquisition Of­ficer and as such Section 25 of the Act has been rendered nugatory.;