BABUA RAM GOA DAMAN AND DIU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH :APPA SHANKAR RAO NAIKS:CHANDGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') proposing acquisition of large extents of land situated in Auri and Anpara Villages of U. P., was published in the State Gazette on July 1, 1978 for public purpose, namely, establishment of thermal power plant. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave two awards of the respective villages on June 28, 1979 and July 25, 1979. The amounts were said to have been paid to the claimants on diverse dates between October 7, 1979 to August 8, 1983. One Krishna Kumar on receiving the compensation under protest on June 28, 1979 made an application under section 18 for reference to the Civil Court. The Addl. District Judge-II, Mirzapur, in his award and decree dated May 25, 1985 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25,000 per bigha with enhanced statutory benefits under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 (for short "Amendment Act"). The State carried the matter in Appeal No. 306/85 to the High Court which is pending disposal. On August 5, 1985, the appellants moved the Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 28-A to redetermine and award compensation on a par with Krishna Kumar. They also simultaneously moved the High Court under Article 226 to direct the Special L.A.O. to decide their applications under section 28-A. The High Court by its order dated January 28, 1987, when directed Special L.A.O., to do the same, the latter rejected their applications on two grounds, namely, the appellants are not aggrieved persons and that the decree and award made in favour of Krishna Kumar was pending appeal in the High Court. They again challenged it in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7276/87 and by the impugned judgment dated October 24, 1991, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants are not aggrieved persons within the meaning of section 28-A read with sections 11, 18 and 31 of the Act.

(2.) Leave granted

(3.) The facts are that the Notification under section 4(1) of 'the Act' was published in the State Gazette on November 17, 1982. The Addl. Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on October 25, 1985 and the respondents received compensation without protest. But one of the claimants with protest received the compensation and on his reference under section 18, the Addl. District Judge by his award and decree dated October 25, 1990, enhanced the compensation. The State carried the matter in appeal. In the meanwhile, on January 19, 1991, the respondents moved an application under section 28-A of the Act to re-determine the compensation as awarded by the District Judge. The appellant being beneficiary, objected to its maintainability contending that the respondents are not aggrieved persons. In the meanwhile, the High Court set aside the decree of the District Judge and remitted the case for fresh determination. We are informed that the Court awarded compensation at Re. 1 per sq. metre. The Land Acquisition Officer by his proceedings dated November 13, 1992, rejected their application finding that the respondents are not aggrieved persons and no application after remand was made. The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 350/93 and batch questioning the correctness of the order passed by the L.A.O. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the respondents are persons aggrieved and that since applications have already been filed under section 28-A(1) within three months from the date of award of the Civil Court dated January 25, 1990 there was no need for them to make fresh application.