U.P. State Industrial Develoment Corporation Ltd v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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 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