STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. MOHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Judgment will dispose of aforesaid two first appeals arising out of the same notification and acquisition is also for the same purpose.

(2.) First Appeal No. 1176 of 1990, has been filed by the State of U. P. against the award dated 22.8.1990 passed by Sri Sudhir Kumar, VIIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar for quashing the same. First Appeal No. 59 of 1991, has been filed by Shri Mohar Singh against the aforesaid award for enhancement of the claim from Rs. 5,800 per bigha to Rs. 12,000 per bigha. The First Appeal No. 59 of 1991, has arisen as Mohar Singh was not satisfied with the claim of Rs. 5.800 per bigha which was awarded by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 22.8.90 on a review application under Section 150. C.P.C. read with Section 28 (A) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) It appears that a big chunk of land measuring 2,064 Bighas 14 Bis was 19 Biswansi was acquired in village Jalalpur, Behra, district Muzaffar Nagar under Section 4 of the Act on 21.4.1984. The possession of the land was taken on 18.12.1984. The aforesaid land was acquired for making 'Bandh' on the bank of Ganges Canal. The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26.4.1986 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,332 per bigha to Rs. 4.050 per bigha according to soil quality of land. Mohar Singh, who is respondent in the appeal filed by the State of U. P., was having 1/3rd share in 50 Bighas and 1 Biswa of land regarding which award was given. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,015 per bigha. The kind of land was Khadar Soyam Khaki. It appears that against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer reference was filed on 21.1.1988 and against the said reference the State has filed objections on 1.7.1988. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.222 per bigha in respect of 1 /3rd share of Shri Mohar Singh and also granted usual statutory benefits under the Act such as 30% solatium and 12% interest was also awarded. It appears that the respondent Mohar Singh was not satisfied from the award of the District Judge dated 6.12.1988. Now the real controversy starts. Mohar Singh was not satisfied with the award of the District Judge dated 6.12.1988 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 428 of 1987. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the first appeal was filed before this Court by the respondent Mohar Singh and the same was dismissed for not paying sufficient court fees.