- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) STATE of U. P. through Collector, Hardoi and Director, UP, Servekshan Avam Bhu Lekh Prashikshan Sansthan, Hardoi, have filed these two First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [here­inafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity] against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.1993 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Hardoi in Misc. Case No. 82 of 1988 Laxmi Shankar Gauri v. State of U.P. and others] and Misc. Case No. 39 of 1990 [Smt. Jageshwari Devi v. State of U.P. and others], respectively, in reference made un­der Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Brief facts of the case are that a Notifi­cation under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.2.1987 for acquiring land of plot Nos. 523, 524, 524/1, 525/1, 525/2, 526 and 542 etc. situated in village Nanakganj Grant, Pargana Gopamau, Tehsil and District Hardoi, for the purposes of constructing Superwiser Kanongo Training School. Thereafter, in the month of September, 1987, another notifica­tion was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby possession of the land was taken over. The Special Land Ac­quisition Officer, on 13.01.1988, awarded compensation at the rate of 3.75 per square feet. After the said award in question was passed, a request was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by Sri Lakshmi Shanker Gaur to the Collector for making reference and it was contended therein that the amount which was awarded by way of compensation was inadequate. To the said request for making reference, objections were filed by the State. Ultimately, the reference was made to the District Judge, Hardoi. The IV Additional District Judge, Hardoi accepted the reference on 12.2.1993 by awarding com­pensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per square feet. Hence the present First Appeal was filed by the State.
(3.) SRI Pramod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, representing the appellants, con­tended with vehemence that in the present case, Reference Court has totally misdirected itself in, accepting the reference by ignoring the important aspect of the matter insofar as that the market value of the land in question on the basis of sale proceed of small portion of land could not have been relied in the present case and further the said exemplar in question which had been relied upon, could not have been relied upon, as onus of proof that the said sale transaction was genuine transaction, had not been discharged, as such in this background, the judgment and decree passed by Reference Court, is liable to be set aside.;