NIRAJ AGARWAL Vs. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the recall application No. 6849 of 2002 has been allowed and I have recalled my order dated 31.8.2001 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy, the writ petition has been restored to its original number. The writ petition has been heard on merits.

(2.) THIS writ petition challenging the order dated 14.12.1998 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, whereby he has refused to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the petitioner, Niraj Agarwal. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under.

(3.) THE further case set-up by the petitioner is that the partnership concerned was ultimately dissolved and a suit was filed between the partners of erstwhile firm said to have been registered in the year 1992. The aforesaid suit was decreed in terms of compromise dated 12.8.1994 wherein it was agreed that the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation of the land acquisition. It is admitted case of the parties that in the said suit in which a compromise was said to have been executed, neither the State of U.P. nor the respondent Mandi Samiti were impleaded as parties. Pursuant to the aforesaid compromise dated 12.8.1994, the petitioner filed an application purporting to be an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that a reference be made to the District Judge after August, 1994. On the said application the objections were invited by the respondents. The acquisition became final. As stated earlier that the writ petition No. 590 of 1976 filed by Ram Ji Das and Nand lal was dismissed on 12.10.1977 and the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court when the appeal taken up against the judgment of this Court was dismissed on 5.8.1992. The alleged partnership came into existence after the judgment of this Court, which upheld the acquisition in the year 1977 and thus the petitioner cannot claim any compensation as he is either a person interested, nor a person whose land is actually acquired. The further objection is that the compromise decree is a sham transaction to which neither the State Government, nor the Mandi Samiti were parties and as such the same cannot bind the Mandi Samiti or the State Government. Respondent No. 1 has further relied upon the circumstances that true owners Ram Ji Das and his wife filed writ petition No. 27527 of 1994 against the award dated 5.8.1994 and Ram Ji Das and his wife had not stated anything about the pendency of the suit No. 301 of 1994. Though the said suit is said to have been filed and decided on 12.8.1994. No such reference was made in the aforesaid writ petition about the compromise decree dated 12.8.1994. The said writ petition was dismissed on 12.11.1994 on the ground that the property had vested in the State of U.P. much before the compromise decree dated 12.8.1994.