OMVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of U.P. acquired land for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) by notification issued on 6.1.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act). The notification under Section 6 was issued on 22.9.1992 and possession was taken on 18.3.1994. Various objections of tenure holders were decided by a common award under Section 11 of the Act on 31.1.2001. While deciding the objection No. 24 filed by the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 6, it was observed by the Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition), Noida (in brief the A.D.M.) that the objections were separately being heard and would be decided on merits and orders for payment of compensation would be passed. On 19.10.2001 on the basis of report of Tehsildar, Dadri, District Ghaziabad, the A.D.M. decided the objections and held that the petitioners and respondents No 3 to 6 are recorded in revenue records on half share each, therefore, he directed payment of half share of the compensation to the petitioners and the remaining half amount of compensation to be paid to respondents No. 3 to 6. It is this order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the A.D.M. that has been challenged in this writ petition. It has been claimed that a direction be issued to the A.D.M. to refer the dispute under Section 30 of the Act.

(2.) We have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal the learned counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2, and Sri S.N. Singh the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 6.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the A.D.M. could only pronounce the award under Section 11 of the Act. It was not open to him to decide the title of the parties and the amount of compensation that was to be received by them. The petitioners had filed an application on 24.10.2001 for recalling the order dated 19.10.2001 and to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication of title and apportionment of the amount of compensation but no order had been passed on this application by the A.D.M. He urged that the A.D.M. was required to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 and Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singirigudi v. Union of India and Ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 432. On the other hand, Sri S.N. Singh learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6 has urged that the proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (in brief the U.P.C.H. Act) had become final and share of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 6 in the land in dispute had been decided to be half and half, therefore, the ADM was justified in apportioning the compensation amount. He urged that the consolidation proceedings with regard to respective shares of parties had become final under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and it cannot be reopened. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and Ors., 1972 AWR 338. He further urged that since title of parties had been decided earlier during consolidation proceedings, therefore, the petitioners did not have any right to claim a reference under Section 30 of the Act. He placed reliance on Vishnu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1993 (1) AWC 515 : 1993 (1) ACJ 218. The learned standing counsel has supported the impugned order.