SHRI RAM AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter for short 'the Act'), read with Section 64 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1984 passed by U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Lucknow accepting reference under Section 18 of the Act and awarding compensation @ Rs. 2.50 paise per sq. ft., along with 12% additional market value from the date of notification to the date of possession with 30% solatium and 9% and 15% interest and costs.

(2.) Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that a notification under Section 28 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parts had Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short the Act), was published on 25.8.1973, whereby the land of appellant which consisted of three plots Nos. 151 m., 154 m. and 156 m., measuring 10 Bigha, 10 Biswansi, 17 Biswansi and 10 Kachwansi (2,87,063 sq. ft.) situated at village Shekhapur, district Lucknow, (for short the land in dispute), was sought to be acquired for Kursi Road Bhumi Vikas and Grahsthan Yojna, Lucknow. The appellant filed objection against the said notification, thereafter, notification under Section 32 of the Act was issued on 20.7.1980. The appellant filed objection claiming compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. under Section 9 of the Act. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases and Special Land Acquisition Officer vide judgment and award dated 22.5.1982 awarded compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 1.13 per sq. ft. Aggrieved by the Judgment and award given by Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, appellant applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The application filed by appellant for making reference, was objected to and contested by the respondent No. 2, pleading that the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as compensation was adequate and no enhancement of the said amount was at all called for. It was also pleaded that the application for reference made by the appellant was barred by limitation.

(3.) The Tribunal has formulated the following questions for determination in the case before it.