BABU NANDAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. P. Misra, J. Having heard Sri A. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the writ petition was allowed in open Court on 6-2- 2006, but the reasons were to follows. The reasons are as under:

(2.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order dated 11-9-2003 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, the respondent No. 3 is sought to be quashed.

(3.) ON 14-7-1993, petitioner also made an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation, on the basis of award dated 24-5-1993 of the Court in aforesaid reference No. 133 of 1992, Jhillu v. Collector and Ors. , with regard to the land covered by the same notification but by the impugned order dated 11-9-2003, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent No. 3, as not maintainable.