- (1.) SINCE common question is involved in all the aforesaid first appeals, the same have been heard analogously and are decided by this judgment, which will have binding effect upon all the appeals.
(2.) FIRST Appeal No. 157 of 1987 has been filed by the State of U. P. against the judgment and award dated 5th November, 1986 passed by the Additional district Judge, Bijnor, as a Reference Court, in L. A. R. No. 98 of 1981. Similarly, first Appeal No. 155 of 1987 filed by the State of U. P. arises out of L. A. R. No. 94 of 1981, whereas First Appeal Nos. 158 of 1987 and 228 of 1987 have been filed by the State of U. P. and claimant respectively against the judgment and award of such Court of the same date arising out of L. A. R. No. 97 of 1981. A Notification No. 5068/12-8-36/79 dated 7th February, 1980 under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the official gazette dated 8th february, 1980 and the Notification No. 5069 (2)/12-8-36/79 dated 8th february, 1980 under section 6 (1) of the said Act was published in the official gazette dated 8th February, 1980 itself. By such acquisition total land measuring 12-558 acre situated in Village Kiratpur, Pargana Kiratpur, Tehsil nazibabad, District Bijnor was acquired for the purpose of construction of krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kiratpur, Bijnor. The District Land Acquisition officer, Bijnor by its order dated 28th July, 1981 awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,579. 05 per acre. Against the said award reference proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were initiated in 1981 itself. According to Court of reference, such awarded amount of compensation is inadequate. The Reference Court by its respective orders dated 5th November, 1986 allowed the references with cost and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/-and Rs. 12/- per square yard respectively, by which per acre have been increased to approximately Rs. 48,000/- and Rs. 58,080/- respectively. Against such awards the present first appeals as well as the cross-objection have been filed. The cross-objection is not separately numbered. The Court of reference has differentiated the rate of compensation on the basis of the position of the locale. It, has been held by the Court of reference that the acquired land which situates in the populous locality and frontage is on the highway, its rate of compensation would be Rs. 12/- per square yard, wherein for such acquired land not connected with the main road and away from Kiraipur-Najibabad road of the locale only connected with a pavement and also away from the railway station being different from the land as above, the rate of compensation has been fixed at Rs. 10/- per square yard. According to us, this intelligible differentia should not be interfered with.
(3.) MR, B. D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel appearing in support ot the mandi Samiti, contended before this Court that the proceeding is faulty on account of non-making requiring body a party to the proceedings, However, since the State of U. P. being acquiring body was always party to the proceeding and the Mandi Samiti being requiring body impleaded themselves as party appellants and all the appeals are analogously heard being connected with each other and whereas such requiring body is the main contesting appellants herein, we are of the view that no body is seen to be unheard, therefore, attempt on the part of Mr. Mandhyan to raise this issue is a futile attempt however, following judgment in this respect is to be understood in this respect. In a Five Judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in U. P. Awas Evam vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. and another, etc. etc. , AIR 1995 SC 724 per majority formulated several points interpreting section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894. Points 6 and 8 are relevant for due consideration. However, section 50 (2) of the Act is quoted hereunder : "250 (2 ). In any proceeding held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation : provided that no such local authority or company shall be entitled to demand a reference under section 18. ";