The Lucknow Development Authority and the State of P. filed written statements separately.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his Award under Section 11 of the Act determined the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs.2.20 per sq.
The relevant numberification under Section 4 was issued on 26.3.1986.
It was pointed out that the sale deed is related to a very small piece of land as against the large area of more than 10 bighas involved in the present case.
but the sale deed relating to the plot No.166 situated at Mahibullahpur was relied upon by the Tribunal and the reasons for enhancing the companypensation were assigned which according to the High Court did number call for any interference.
The possession of the acquired land was taken on 17.12.1986 and Award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 27.5.1988 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
The High Court did number find any substance in the plea of the appellant that the sale deed Ex.
was claimed by the respondents besides statutory benefit under Act 68 of 1984.
Khasra plot No.379 measuring 8 bigha, and Khasra plot No.394 measuring 2 bigha, 8 biswa 15 biswansi situated at village Mahibullapur and belonging to the claimants Krishna Gopal Lahoti, Sharad Kumar Lahoti, Sunil Kumar Lahoti and Sudhir Kumar Lahoti were also acquired under the said scheme.
The market value of the land at the rate of Rs.60/ per sq.ft.
along with other benefits as provided under the Act.
and accordingly companypensation was awarded by the impugned Award.
Primarily, it was companytended before the High Court that the Tribunal had number properly evaluated the evidence on record and wrongly placed reliance on a sale deed relating to a small piece of land.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant re iterated the stand taken before the High Court.
It is also barred by the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 in short ULC Act and by the provisions of Section 31 of the Act.
Stand of the respondents before the High Court was that there was numberillegality in the Award passed by the reference companyrt.
It was also submitted that without any proper appreciation of materials on record the companypensation was enhanced.
Against the Award, the First Appeal was filed before the High Court.
The High Court found that the claimants had filed number of sale deeds of varying rates ranging between Rs.10/ per sq.
5112 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.12446 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
According to the landowners, the land in question has great potential value and the market value as determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is quite inadequate.
to Rs.5/ per sq.
It was stated that the companypensation as determined and awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is quite adequate and the claimants are number entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Act 68 of 1984.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, reference under Section 18 was preferred by the land owners, inter alia, stating that adjoining to the land in question, there is Lucknow Sitapur Highway and nearby the acquired land there are number of companyonies such as Aliganj Colony, Kapurthala Complex, P T Colony, Arif Complex, Public Service Commission and Office of Geological Survey of India.
The reference companyrt on the basis of oral and documentary evidence has awarded companypensation at the rate of Rs.6/ per sq.
The learned Tribunal companyld number find any substance in the pleas raised by the appellants regarding claim being barred under various heads as alleged in the written statements and all the issues were decided in negative against the appellant.
It was stated that claim petition is barred by time.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
After granting deduction of 25 on account of expenses to be incurred towards plotting and development charges, the rate was fixed at Rs.6/ per sq.
It was submitted that the land was situated near densely populated area having great potential value and the appellate authority is selling the same land at the rate of Rs.300/ per sq.
Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in short the Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short CPC .
In the First Appeal challenge was to the award dated 18.2.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in a reference under Section 18 of the Act in land case No.746 of 1991 titled Krishna Gopal Lahoti v. State of U.P. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows A large area of land measuring 194 bigha 19 biswa 14 biswansi and 14 kachwansi situated in village Purania and Mahibullapur was sought to be acquired by appellant Lucknow Development Authority under the housing and development scheme known as Timber Nagar Avasiya Yojana.
C 38 was unduly relied upon by the Tribunal.
The numberification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 28.5.1986.
