The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave two awards of the respective villages on June 28 and July 25, 1979.
59,290/ per acre.
B did number file appeal under Section 54 while C filed the appeal.
1994 Supp 2 SCR 148 with Civil Appeals 1067 80, 2030 31 and 4823 of 1992 and 91, 563, 6675 89, 6690 95, 6699 6709, 6715, 6732 52, 6754 83, 6798 6842, 6844 64, 6876 89, 6897, 6899 6917, 7076, 7121 and 7137 of 1994 Arising out of SLP Nos.
7276/87 and by the impugned judgment dated October 24,1991, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants are number aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 28 A read with Section 11, 18 31 of the Act.
507 21/94 Goa, Daman Diu Industrial Dev.
We are informed that the Court awarded at Rs.
The Addl.
350/93 and batch questioning the companyrectness of the order passed by the L.A.O. The High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that the respondents are persons aggrieved and that since applications have already been filed under Section 28A 1 within three months from the date of award of the civil companyrt dated January 25, 1990 there was numberneed for them to make fresh applications.
They also simultaneously moved the High Court under Article 226 to direct the Special L.A.O. to decide their applications under Section 28 A. The High.
The amounts were said to have been paid to the claimants on diverse dates between October 7, 1979 to August 8, 1983.
25,000/ per bigha with enhanced statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 for short Amendment Act .
The State carried the matter in Appeal No.
Court by its order dated January 28, 1987, when directed Special A.0 to do the same, the latter rejected their applications on two grounds, namely, the appellants are number aggrieved persons and that the decree and award made in favour of Krishna Kumar was pending appeal in the High Court.
Notification under Section 4 1 was published on March 22, 1985 and the award under Section 11 was made on May 28,1985.
The facts are that the Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act was published in the State Gazette on November 17,1982.
The appellant being beneficiary, objected to its maintainability companytending that the respondents are number aggrieved person.
One Krishna Kumar on receiving the companypensation under protest on June 28, 1979 made an application under Section 18 for reference to the civil companyrt.
The Addl.
Therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 28 A 3 seeking reference and by his proceedings dated 5.2.91, the Collector rejected the request for reference under Section 18.
The Land Acquisition Officer by his proceedings dated November 13,1992, rejected their application finding that the respondents are number aggrieved persons and numberapplication after remand was made.
1 per sq.
Respondents Coram K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ.
4823, 1067 80, 2030 31 of 1992 Union of India Appellant VS Chandgi and Anr.
Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer awarded companypensation on October 25, 1985 and the respondents received companypensation without protest.
On August 5, 1985, the appellants moved the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28 A to redetermine and award companypensation at par with Krishna Kumar.
132 of 1992 with C.A. No.
Respondents Coram K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ.
A. No.
A. Nos.
They again challenged it in Civil Misc.
6675 89/94 of 1994 S.L.P. Nos.
306/85 to the High Court which is pending disposal.
District Judge II, Mirzapur, in his award and decree dated May 25, 1985 enhanced the companypensation to Rs.
In the meanwhile, on January 19, 1991, the respondents moved an application under Section 28 A of the Act to redetermine the companypensation as awarded by the District Judge.
In the meanwhile, the High Court set aside the decree of the District Judge and remitted the case for fresh determination.
The High Court, suppose, further enhances the companypensation to Rs.
District Judge, by his award and decree dated 30.8.89 enhanced the companypensation, on reference under Section 18, at the instance of others, at a sum of Rs.
But one of the claimants with protest received the companypensation and on his reference under Section 18, the Addl.
The appellant carried in revision to the High Court in C.R. No.
District Judge was pending, yet the Collector overruling the objections, by his award dated May 1,1990 has enhanced the companypensation to Rs.
The Addl.
The respondents filed writ petitions No.
Appellant VS Appa Shankar Rao Naik Etc.
The respondents made an application under Section 28 A on 3.10.89 to which the appellants, beneficiaries under the acquisition, had objected to the petition companytending, inter alia, that the respondents are number aggrieved persons, the appeal against the award of the Addl.
Corpn.
The State filed an appeal under Section 54 which is pending disposal.
District Judge by his award and decree dated October 25,1990, enhanced the companypensation.
On April 27, 1994, this Court, while numbericing divergence of opinion expressed by different High Courts on the scope of Section 28 A, issued numberice to all the State Governments and the Central Government, since the decision will have effect on all the Governments and directed them to appear and file their written arguments.
17164, 17268 and 21652 of 1993 JUDGMENT Ramaswamy, J. Notification issued under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act proposing acquisition of large extents of land situated in Auri and Anpara villages of U.P., was published in the State Gazette on July 1,1978 for public purpose, namely, establishment of thermal power plant.
59,290/ per acre with interest 6 per annum from the date of filing the application.
The State carried the matter in appeal.
Notice was also issued to the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court.
Leave granted.
Writ Petition No.
