Court No. - 24
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 760 of 1986 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Gopi Nath & Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.,N.P.Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- O.P.Misra,S.M. Mishra,S.P. Mishra
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
The substitution application has been filed for substituting the legal heirs of respondent no. 1/1, Kapil Dev, respondent no. 4 Ram Prasad and respondent no. 5 Bans Bahadur; who died on 04.01.2004, 21.07.2001 and 29.11.2003 respectively.
The application is accompanied with delay condonation application.
No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application as well as substitution application has been filed.
I have perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application in filing the substitution application beyond time.
The cause shown for delay in filing the substitution application is bona-fide. Consequently, the Delay Condonation Application No. No. 156435 of 2010 as well as Substitution Application No. 156434 of 2010 are allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out necessary correction in the array of parties, in the memo of appeal as well as stay application during the course of the day.
Order on Appeal
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present appeal is directed against the award dated 11.02.1985 passed by the District Judge, Basti in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 1983.
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 31.05.1980 for acquisition of land situate in village Jamdih Pandey and notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.10.1981. The possession of the land was taken on 21.02.1982.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 19.01.1982 determining the compensation of Rs.73,846.15/- per acres. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the tenure holders preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that with respect to land situate in adjacent villages namely Gaon Godiya, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.73,846.15/- per acres and since the land of the tenure holders are identical in all manner with the land of village Gaon Godiya and as such, they are also entitled for a compensation @ Rs.73,846.15 per acres.
The court below after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the land situate in village Jamdih Pandey is identical to the land of village Gaon Godiya in all respect and, therefore, the tenure holders are entitled for a compensation @ Rs.73,846.15 along with all other benefits as are available to the tenure holders under the Act, 1894 with interest.
Learned Standing Counsel has contended that merely because the village Gaon Godiya was adjacent to the village Jamdih Pandey it cannot be said that the land of both villages are identical in all respect and as such the tenure holders of village Jamdih Pandey are entitled for enhancement of compensation.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The court below has considered the evidence on record while holding that the land of Goan Godiya are identical in all respect to land Jamdih Pandey, therefore, the tenure holders of village Jamdih Pandey are entitled for enhancement of compensation. The detailed finding have been recorded by the court below in this regard after appreciating the evidence on record.
The learned Standing Counsel could not point out any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the court below and, as such, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 Ishan