Hon'ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.
This writ petition has been pending in this Court since long time.
Sri M.K. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passage of time, except one relief as sought in the writ petition, the other reliefs have become redundant. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to notice the facts in detail.
The present writ petition was filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of 3878 sq. metres land of Malviya Pustakalaya, a public institution situate at Rasalganj, Aligarh.
The petitioner claims that there is an educational institution under the name and style of 'Bhart Varshiya National Association' which was formed in the year 1878 and was registered on 18-7-1887 in the office of Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, North West Provinces and Avadh with its aims and objects which were formed by the society. To achieve the aims and objects of the Association, a public library was started at the leased land in the year 1882-84 by the lease deed and the same was made a Lyall Library. The petitioner claims permanent lessee of the said piece of land which has been acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the validity of land acquisition proceedings are no longer in dispute, it is not necessary to notice the details in this regard. Confining his arguments to a limited extent, Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on admitted facts, the petitioner is entitled to get a part of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, being permanent lessee of the land in question. He invited attention of the Court towards the lease deed, the letter dated 20-7-1987 written by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District Judge, Aligarh and its reply by the learned District Judge, as also the award.
It may be noted that the State Government has not filed any counter affidavit in the present writ petition. Only one counter affidavit by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad disputing the pleas raised in the writ petition with regard to acquisition of the land has been filed. None is present on behalf of U.P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submits that the present writ petition, in the absence of Nagar Palika Aligarh, as a respondent, is not maintainable.
Considered respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
As noticed hereinabove, Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to a limited extent that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the District Judge, Aligarh to register the reference under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act.
In contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that from the award it appears that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner Association under Public Premises Act and the said proceedings were pending when the award dated 15-9-1986 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as is apparent from the award itself, the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.
Undoubtedly, from the award it appears that the land in dispute was permanently leased out to the petitioner Association in the year 1890. It also appears that the said land is a Government nazul land and was in the management at the relevant point of time with Nagar Palika, Aligarh. It also appears that the proceedings under Public Premises Act were initiated against the lessee, but its outcome, if any, is not on the record.
Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that all these facts shall be examined by the reference court while determining the apportionment of the compensation amount to the petitioner. All the pleas shall be open to the parties for consideration before the reference court. When the matter has been referred by the Special Land Acqusition Officer to the civil court under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is incumbent upon the civil court to decide the said reference on the basis of the evidence which may be led by the respective parties.
It appears from the record that some correspondence took between Special Land Acquisition Officer (II), U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Kamla Nagar, Agra and the office of the District Judge, Aligarh. In para-16 (J) of the writ petition, which was introduced through amendment, it has been stated that on enquiry from the office of the District Judge, Aligarh it has been learnt that the District Judge has not formally registered the reference in pursuance of the letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (II), Agra dated 20-7-1987. In para 16(K) it has been further stated that the petitioner Association had not received any notice from the court of District Judge, Aligarh or from any other court regarding any reference having been made to it for deciding the question relating to the person entitled to the compensation. These averments remain uncontroverted. This being so, it is desirable that the District Judge, Aligarh be asked to proceed with the reference and decide the same in accordance with law on the basis of the basis of evidence which may be brought on record by the parties. This being so, it is not necessary for us to discuss the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, being Indra Prasad Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 239 and Brij Behari Sahai and others Vs. State of U.P. (2004) 1 SCC 641. These decisions touch the merits of the case which will be examined by the reference court at the appropriate stage.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010 ALS