Allahabad High Court
B.K.D.A. vs Akhilesh Kuamr on 21 July, 2015
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 455 of 2000
Appellant :- B.K.D.A.
Respondent :- Akhilesh Kuamr
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwani Kuamr Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :-
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
1. Called in revised. Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appeared on behalf of respondent. We thus proceed ex parte.
2. Heard.
3. It is pointed out that the impugned award dated 10.3.1992 was passed in eight connected Land Acquisition References including Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 1992, Akhilesh Kumar vs. State including the matter in present appeal. In respect to another connected L.A.R. No. 14 of 1992, Smt. Sudha Sharma vs. State, against the award dated 10.3.1992, First Appeal No. 1067 of 2004 came up before this Court, which has been decided by judgment dated 1.9.2009 following the Division Bench judgment against this very award passed in First Appeal No. 386 of 1992 decided on 31.3.2004. The judgment dated 1.9.2009 passed in First Appeal No. 1067 of 2004 reads as under:
"Heard Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.V.Keshwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
By a comman judgement the appellants have assailed the judgement of the reference court dated 10.3.1992 by which a reference under Section 18 Land Acquisition Act was answered by the court below. The controversy raised in this appeal has already been concluded by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgement rendered on 31.3.2004. The issues involved are same under the same notification of Land Acquisition Proceedings were challenged. In this judgement a Division Bench of this Court has remanded the matter back to the reference court for giving it a fresh look and reconsideration. This appeal also being dealt with in the same manner.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The reference court is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observation made in the aforementioned judgement and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Since the reference was made in the year, 1992 and about 17 years have now passed, the matter needs expeditious disposal. The court below may make necessary endeavour to dispose of the reference expeditiously.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.3.1992 is hereby set aside. The matter is being remanded to the court below certificate shall be granted under Section 13 of the Court Fee Act for the refund of the Court Fee on the memo of appeal vide Chandra Bhushan Mishra Vs. Smt. Jayatri Devi, AIR 1996 Alld.142 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Bhushan, AIR 1980 S.C. 591. "
4. In view of the above and considering the fact that the appeals against this very award have already been decided by Hon'ble Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, for the reasons contained in the aforesaid judgments i.e. First Appeal No. 386 of 1992 decided on 31.3.2004 and First Appeal No. 1067 of 2004 decided on 1.9.2009 and in the same terms and condition, this appeal is also allowed. The impugned award dated 10.3.1992 is hereby set aside.
5. The matter is being remanded to the court below, certificate shall be granted under Section 13 of the Court Fee Act for the refund of the Court Fee on the memo of appeal vide Chandra Bhushan Mishra Vs. Smt. Jayatri Devi, AIR 1996 Alld. 142 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Chandra Bhushan, AIR 1980 S.C. 591.
Order Date: 21.7.2015/Ashish Prasad
