STATE OF U P Vs. GUR SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna ,j. These four first appeals are under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 C. P. C. and are against a common judgment and decree dated 2nd of January, 1992 passed by the Vlth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 598 of 1991, 599 of 1991, 600 of 1991 and 601 of 1991. All the aforestated Land Acquisition References were directed against the award dated 22nd of July, 1991 delivered by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Case No. 63 of 1989. All the references were consolidated and were decided by a common judgement and Reference No. 958 of 1991: Ishwar Singh v. State of U. P. giving rise to the first appeal No. 338 of 1991 was treated as the leading case. In this Court also the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the first appeal No. 338 of 1994 may be treated as leading case and the judgment shall govern the remaining appeals as the point in issue is identical in all these mat ters.

(2.) FOR the purposes of construction and establishment of Alawas Dam the State Government acquired certain piece of land of village Haldauna, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar by issuing notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. These Notifications were published on 25th of February, 1989 and 3rd of August, 1989 respectively. The details of plots as their number, area and name of the owners are given below: PLOT NOS. AREA NAME OF THE OWNEr 642 0-4-1 Bigha Ishwar Singh 652 2-4-5 Bighas Gur Sharan Singh 621 3-5-8 Bighas Gur Nam Singh 624 3-2-5 Bighas Smt. Surjeet Kaur.

(3.) THE contention of the learned standing Counsel Shri Srish Chandra is that the sale deed dated 25th of March, 1991 is not relevant as it is subsequent to the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and there is a time gap of about one and half years. He further submits that the Reference Court has not considered as to whether the said sale deed dated 25th of March, 1991 was a genuine or sham transaction. THE learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the land in question was situated in a prime locality having great potentiality for building purposes. THE said land was included in Greater Noida as is clear from the public notice being paper No. 16-C issued in pursuance of the State Government G. O. dated 19th of September, 1989, whereby and wherein the State Government published a list of various villages which were including within the limits of Greater Noida for the purposes of industrial development of the area.