- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter for short 'the Act', read with Section 66 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-10-84 passed by U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Lucknow accepting ref erence under Section 18 of the Act and awarding compensation @ Rs. 2. 50 paise per sq. ft. , alongwith 12% additional market value from the date of notification to the date of possession with 30% solatium and 9% and 15% interest and costs.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that a notification under Section 28 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 for short the Act, was published on 25-8-73, whereby the land of appellant which consisted of three plot Nos. 151m. , 154 M. , and 156m, measuring 10 Bigha, 10 Biswa, 17biswansi and 10 achwansi (2,87,063 sq. ft.) situated at village Shekhapur, District Lucknow, for short the land in dispute, was sought to be acquired for Kursi Road Bhumi Vikas and Grahsthan Yojna, Lucknow. The ap pellant filed objection against the said notification, thereafter, notification under Section 32 of the Act was issued on 20-7-80. The appellant filed objection claiming compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. under Section 9 of the Act. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases and Spe cial Land Acquisition Officer vide judg ment and awarded dated 22. 5. 82 award compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 1. 13 per sq. ft. Aggrieved by the judgment and award given by Special Land Acquisition Officer, appellant applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The applica tion filed by appellant for making refer ence, was objected to and contested by the respondent No. 2, pleading that the amount awarded by the Special Land Ac quisition Officer as compensation was adequate and no enhancement of the said amount was at all called for. It was also pleaded that the application for reference made by the appellant was barred by limitation. The Tribunal has formulated the following questions for determination in the case before it: (1) Whether the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Of ficer is inadequate. If so to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled? (2) Whether reference is barred by time? (3) To what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled? While dealing with the issue No. 2 it was held by the Tribunal that Special Land Acquisition Officer gave award on 25-5-82 and the application for reference against the said award was filed on 5-7-82, which was well within the time prescribed for the same. While dealing with issue No. 1 it was held that the land in question was more than 10 Bighas, same could reasonably be valued at Rs. 2. 75 per sq. ft. for awarding compensation in the present case. Having recorded the aforesaid find ings, it was concluded by the Tribunal that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 1. 30 per sq. n. was inadequate and ultimately accepted the reference in part by judgment and order dated 10-10-84 and awarded compensation as stated above. Since the appellant was not satisfied by the order passed by the Tribunal, present appeal was filed by the appellant.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the compensation awarded to the appellant for the land in dispute was highly inadequate and insuffi cient. It was urged that by means of same notification dated 25-8-73 and 20-7-80, other portion of the same plot No. 151 situated in the same village measuring 1 Bigha 12 Biswa of land was acquired. Ar vind Bajpai and others filed case No. 17/82, which was decided on 11-5-84 by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow and compensation @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. ft. was awarded to them. The said order has become final. There fore, the appellant on the principle and spirit of Section 28-A of the Act, as amended by the Act No, 68 of 1984 was entitled to compensation @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. ft. The Court below has acted illegally in awarding Compensation to the appel lant @ Rs. 2. 76 per sq. ft. Otherwise, also it was urged that in view of the findings recorded by the Court below regarding situation and building potential of the land in dispute, the market value as determined by the Court below is inadequate and in sufficient. On the other hand, learned Coun sel appearing for the contesting which respondent No. 2 supported the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Court below. It has been urged that the Court below has taken into consideration all factors, which were relevant for deter mination of the amount of compensation and thereafter awarded compensation @ Rs. 2. 75 per tea. ft. , in accordance with law. Same cannot be said to be inadequate or insufficient and should not be enhanced.;