U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOMENT CORPORATION LTDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

A    U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOMENT CORPORATION LTD.
                               v.
                     STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                               OCTOBER 19, 1994
         [K. RA,MASWAMY, M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]
B
          Land JC!cquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 18, 28-A (1) and (2), Land
    Acquisition-Compensation-Award by District Judge-Stage's appeaf-Pen-
    dency of-Application under Section 28-A ( 1) during-Held such application
    should be k~t pending till disposal of State's appeal.
C          For acquisition of certain lands the Collector passed awards deter-
     mining the compensation. Some of the claimants received compensation
     without protest and some on protest. On reference by the claimants of later
     category they were granted enhanced compensation against which State
     preferred wl'it petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the
     writ petition, the claimants of formercategory made an application under
D    section 28-A (1). Following the award of the District Court the Land Ac-
     quisition Officer passed awards under section 29-A (2). Petitions challeng-
    •ing these aw;irds were dismissed by the High Court.
           In ap~eals to this Court on the question whether the Collector was
    right in determining the compensation under section 28-A:

E         Allowi,ng the appeals and setting aside the orders of the High Court,
    this Court
           HELi~ : In view of the law laid down in Babua Ram's case the High
    Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. The award of the
    Collector made under section 28-A (2) is quashed and he is directed to keep
    the application filed under section 28-A (1) of the Act pending till the
F
    disposal of the appeal. He should determine the compensation based on the
    final judgm¢nt according to law. [581B-F]
          Babua Ram and Ors. v.State ofU.P., [1994] Suppl. 4SCR148, reled on.
          CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDI CTIO N: Civil Appeal Nos. 8112-14/94etc.
G         From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1992 of the High Court of
    Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Writ Peto. Nos. 16908, 16910 and 16909 of
    1989 respectively.
           V.A. jlobde, U.N.R. Rao, G.L. Sanghi, C.S. Vaidyanathan, R.
    Venkatachal~pathi, U.a. Rana,RajivTyagi,Anand Prasad, Mohinder Rupal,
H    Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalitha Kohli, S. Bala Krishnan, S. Prasad, SatendraJain,
                                       581-A
             U.P.STATEINDSL.DEV.CORPN. LTD. v. STATE                     581B

Satendra Jain, R.N. Keshwani, A. Maniarputharn and Ms. A;una Mathur,              A
U.N. Kourd and Ashok Grover for the appearing parties

      The following order of the Court was delivered :

      Leave granted.

       Thease appeals arise from the judgment of the High c;ourt of Allahabad     B
dated 29.11.1992 made in W.P. No.16908/89 and batch. The only controversy
in these cases is whether the Collector was right in determining the compen-
sation under s. 28-A of the Act. The notification under s.4(2) of the Land Ac-
quisition Act, 1894, Act No. 1 of 1894, for short 'the Act', was published on
February 9, 1962. the Collector passed the awards relating to three villages on
different dates determining the compensation. Some of the claimants               C
received the compensation without protest and some on protest. Those who
received the compensation under protest sought for and secured references
under s. 18 to the Civil Court. The Addi. District Judge, Ghaziabad in his
award and decree dated May23, 1987 enhanced the compensation. The State
filed F.A. No. 668of1987 which io pending disposal in the High Court at Al-
lahabad. The claimants who received the compensation without protest made         D
applications under s.28-A (1) of the Act. Following the award of the District
Court, the land acquisition officer passed the award under s. 28-A (2) of the
Act. This was challenged by the appellants in the High Court in the writ peti-
tions which were dismissed. Thus these appeals by special leave.

       The entfre controversy has been considered by this Court inBabua Ram
and Ors. v. State of U.P. dated 4.10.1994 rendered in C.A. Nos. 563/94 and E
batch and held that since an appeal has been preferred by the State against
the award of the Dist!. Judge made under s.26 of the Act, the proper course
open to the L.A.0., on an application made under s.28-A(l) of the Act, would
be to keep the applications under s.28-A(l) pending till the appeal filed
against the award of the District Judge is disposed of by the High Court and
then to take action as per s.28-A(2) of the Act, Following the law laid down F
therein and subject to directions contained therein, we hold that the High
Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. Therefore, the order of
the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. Collector made
under s.28-A (2) is quashed. The Collector/L.A.O. is directed to keep the ap-
plication filed udner s. 28-A (1) of the Act pending till the disposal ofthe ap- G
peal. On receipt of the judgment from the High Court or in an appeal by this
Court the L.A.O. is direct to determine the compensation based on the final
judgment according to law.

       The appeals are accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without
costs.
T.N.A.                                                     Appeals allowed.       H