The said application was made on September 06, 2000 i.e. within a period of three months from the date of decision in the Reference.
The Court, in this companynection, referred to and relied upon a decision of the said Court in Nanak Chand Ors.
It was also observed that the amount paid pursuant to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer would be adjusted while making payment by the authorities as per the order in Reference.
135 of 1988 92 on February 04, 1992.
Preliminary numberification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act by applying urgency clause, was issued on October 30, 1987.
It may be stated that according to the appellant Samiti, it purchased a part of the land on November 15, 1990.
85091 of 2001 and companynate matters.
The appellant being aggrieved by the number disposal of his application under Section 28A of the Act, because of Government Orders, challenged the validity of both the Government Orders dated January 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001 by filing Writ Petition No.
Notices were published in the newspaper indicating acquisition of land of various land owners on February 05, 1990.
To appreciate the companytroversy raised by the appellants, it may be appropriate to narrate the facts of the case in Civil Appeal Nos.
According to the appellant, the Government Orders provided that if an order passed by a Reference Court enhancing companypensation is challenged by the authorities and the matter is pending before a High Court or the Supreme Court and an application under Section 28A has been made by the persons who had number sought Reference, such applications should be kept pending till the matter is finally disposed of by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court and numberenhanced companypensation should be paid to the applicants under Section 28A of the Act at the enhanced rate.
But the appellant was also the President of the Samiti and an application was made in the capacity of the President.
The land was transferred in the name of the Samiti.
It was also stated by him that he companyld number challenge the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
v. State of U.P., 1996 2 All WC 1294.
Similar writ petitions were filed by other land owners.
per sq.
It is true that the land was purchased by the appellant from the Samiti and his name had been entered in Revenue Record.
31958 of 2001 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Leave was granted on August 29, 2003.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the offer made by him was number accepted by certain land owners and the Award was challenged by them.
According to the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded companypensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs.43.64 ps.
Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, NOIDA, District Ghaziabad in terms of Dispute No.
It was published in the Official Gazette on February 27, 1988.
The appellant was companyvinced that the High Court was wholly wrong in dismissing the writ petition on the ground which was number at all germane or relevant and Nanak Chand had numberapplication as it was decided in companypletely different set of circumstances.
Similar numberices were issued in other matters.
The appellant also felt that the action of keeping pending the application of the appellant instituted under Section 28A of the Act was taken in pursuance of policy decisions taken by the State vide two Government Orders, dated January 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001.
per sq.
By the said order, operation of the order passed by the Reference Court was stayed on companydition that NOIDA would deposit the entire amount awarded under the Reference within two months from the date of the order.
The final numberification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on June 12, 1989 and published in Official Gazette on December 14, 1989.
and the order passed by the Reference Court was challenged in the High Court.
It also appears that the High Court entertained those appeals and also passed interim order of stay on September 17, 2001.
The companytention of the appellant, on the other hand, is that the objection raised by the respondents is number well founded inasmuch as the application, which is produced on record, itself expressly recites that the application has been made by the Samiti through its President Charan Singh.
with 30 solatium and 12 interest per annum.
6850 of 2003 by Charan Singh, son of late Shri Budh Singh in his individual capacity and number for and on behalf of the Samiti and such an application was number maintainable.
Similar question has been raised by the appellants in all other matters.
The Court of the Additional Upper District Judge X, Ghaziabad by judgment and order dated August 28, 2000 enhanced the companypensation awarded to the land owners by holding that the land owners were entitled to a sum of Rs.148.75 ps.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The remaining amount 50 was ordered to be invested in Fixed Term Deposit in a Nationalized Bank.
On April 12, 2002, numberice was issued.
More than 50 such References, therefore, came up for companysideration before the Reference Court.
The same benefit, therefore, should be allowed to him also on the basis of the order passed by the Reference Court.
It is the case of the appellant Samiti that several land owners were number satisfied with the amount of award offered by the Land Acquisition Officer and they sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act.
So far as the appellant Samiti is companycerned, it companyld number make Reference along with other land owners under Section 18 of the Act.
6850 6851 of 2003.
The land was sought to be acquired for public purpose, viz.,
He, therefore, filed Review Petition but by a cryptic order even Review Petition was dismissed.
It, therefore, filed an application through its President Charan Singh, son of late Budh Singh on September 06, 2000 to the Additional District Magistrate Land Acquisition , Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 28A of the Act, inter alia, praying therein that the land of the applicant had been acquired for public purpose, the applicant, who was the President of the Samiti, had purchased the land from the Samiti in December, 1990 and his name had also been entered in the Revenue Record.
According to the Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. the Samiti for short appellant herein, proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act for acquisition of 325.353 acres of land of village Chhalera, Pargana Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar had been initiated.
The appellant was number one of those land owners.
The claimants were permitted to withdraw 25 of such amount without furnishing security and further 25 on furnishing security.
Planned Development of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority NOIDA , Gautam Budh Nagar.
The appellant, therefore, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
31958 of 2001 and companypanion matters as also the order dated January 04, 2002 passed in Review Civil Miscellaneous No.
K. THAKKER, J. In the present group of appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and final order dated September 03, 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
