U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. KANAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the board) was established and constituted under the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad adhiniyam (hereinafter called as the 'act'). The Municipal Corporation of Agra, issued a notification on 23.4.1960 under section 357 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the adhiniyam') proposing to acquire a large tract of land for an improvement scheme. Subsequently, a notification under section 363 of the Adhiniyam was issued on 29.6.1964. It is alleged that after the Act came into force, the improvement scheme finalised by the Agra Corporation was transferred to the board under section 47 of the act. It is further alleged that on 18.6.1971, possession of the land was taken by the board without any award. Subsequently, on 24.11.1972, the award was given in respect of the acquired land by the special land acquisition officer. On 31.12.1972, the claimants sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court by judgment dated 24.3.1989 enhanced the compensation. Thereafter, the board applied before the tribunal for grant of certificate to file an appeal before the high Court under section 381 of the adhiniyam. It is not disputed that the certificate sought for was given by the tribunal. The board accordingly preferred an appeal before the High Court. However, the board did not deposit the decretal amount as required under sub-section (3) of section 381 of the Adhiniyam.

(2.) When the first appeal came up before the High Court, the High Court after having found that the appellant had not deposited the decretal amount as required under subsection (3) of section 381, dismissed the appeal. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition.

(3.) When the matter was taken up, it was brought to our notice by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that against the enhanced compensation arising out of the same scheme, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed on account of having not deposited the decretal amount as required under sub-section (3) of section 381 of the adhiniyam and a special leave petition preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court and the view taken by the High Court was affirmed.