U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko and Others vs Smt. Rajni Verma and Others

Hon''ble Sanjay Misra, J.—All the above connected First Appeals arise out of the same notification under the Land Acquisition Act and under the same scheme and are therefore being taken up together for the purpose of final decision.

Heard Sri Sri Kant, Sri Ajit Singh Rana and Sri Awadesh Tiwari for the appellants and Smt. Sunita Agarwal appearing for claimant respondent no. 1 as also learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the claimant respondent has referred to a judgment dated 26.5.2010 of a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of First Appeals, leading one being First Appeal No. 273 of 1997 ( U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Kanak and Others) and submits that out of the very same land acquisition notification and under the very same scheme, the said bunch of First Appeals were dismissed, cross objections of the claimant respondents were also dismissed and the award of Rs. 27/- per sq. yard was affirmed. According to Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned counsel for the claimant respondent, the said judgement of the Division Bench was assailed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9129 of 2011, which was dismissed on 10.5.2011. A copy of the said order has also been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit. According to Smt. Sunita Agarwal, the award dated 30.4.1997 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 36 of 1990, which is assailed in the present First Appeal and the awards assailed in the connected First Appeals are also out of the same notification under the same scheme and therefore, these appeals be also decided in terms of the Division Bench judgement in the bunch of First Appeals, leading one being First Appeal No. 273 of 1997 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Kanak and Others) as affirmed by Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Sri Sri Kant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has raised various contentions regarding the awarded amount of Rs. 27/- per sq. yard on merits and submits that the impugned award requires to be set aside for those reasons.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the ground of challenge taken by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow - the appellant in the First Appeals and those taken by the claimants in their connected First Appeals/Cross Objections arising out of the very same notification and under the very same scheme, were considered by a Division Bench and repelled, which order of the Division Bench was affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as already referred to hereinabove. Under such circumstances, these appeals also require to be decided in terms thereof.

Paragraph 72 of the judgement of the Division Bench in the similar bunch of First Appeals is quoted hereunder:

Accordingly, the appeals of the Parishad and the cross appeals of the claimants are dismissed and the impugned awards of Rs. 27/- per sq. yard are affirmed. The claimants are also held entitled to the statutory benefits of the 1984 Amendment Act along with the statutory interest under Ss. 28 and 34 of the LA Act on the entire amount of compensation from the date of possession to the date of its actual payment and the rule of appropriation, as laid down in Gurdeep Singh (supra), will apply. Since the proceedings for acquisition in the present matters commenced four decades back, the Parishad shall pay the entire sum, as above, if not already paid, within a period of 9 months from today with interest up to the date of payment. The parties would bear their own costs.

Such order of the Division Bench has been admittedly affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the aforementioned First Appeals and cross objections stand finally disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in the bunch of First Appeals with respect to the very same notification and same scheme as quoted herein above.

No order is passed as to costs.