By the Court.—Heard Sri Shishir Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for appellant and Sri Sharad Malviya, Advocate for respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1995 passed by Sri Lal Chandra Tripathi, Additional Civil Judge (Second), Jaunpur in Original Suit No. 57 of 1992, Baijnath v. Executive Engineer), whereby it has decreed the suit and declared plaintiff-respondent entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,77,547.62 on account of acquisition of land, i.e., Araji No. 23, area 31 dismil, situated at Mauja Baluai, Pargana Rari (present Tehsil Badlapur), District Jaunpur, taking away 7 dismil area for the purpose of construction of Maharajganj-Pilkicha-Khuthan-Trikolia road and interest at the rate of 15% thereon.

3. The plaintiff-respondent instituted Original Suit No. 57 of 1992 alleging that he is Bhumidhar in possession of Araji No. 23, area 31 dismil, situated at Mauja Baluai, Pargana Rari (present Tehsil Badlapur), District Jaunpur. The Public Works Department of State of U.P. in 1978 took possession of part of land of plaintiff and raised construction laying down Maharajganj-Pilkicha-Khuthan-Trikolia road thereon. Seven dismil land of plaintiff and other tenure holders was taken by Public Works Department. The work of road was completed within 2 years but no compensation or damages were paid to plaintiff. The acquisition notification for disputed land under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1894”) was published on 10.11.1979 and award was made on 15.9.1984. Plaintiff had the confidence that he shall be paid compensation of his land acquired by defendant-appellant alongwith other tenure holders of the village. The other tenure holders were issued notices and they also received compensation but no such notice was ever received by plaintiff and when he made inquiry, he was informed that none of his land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of aforesaid road though the fact is that seven dismil land of plaintiff had been taken for construction of aforesaid road. The plaintiff approached the officer concerned as also the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “SLAO”) but nothing happened. Notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was given by plaintiff on 30.11.1991. The plaintiff is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/- per square feet, besides damages of Rs. 5,000/-, solatium at 30% and interest at the rate of 9% and 15% as per Act, 1894.

4. The cause of action according to plaintiff arose in 1970 when construction of road started and then 30.11.1991 when notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was served upon defendant-appellant.

5. The suit was contested by appellant filing written statement wherein construction of road was admitted but factum of acquisition of any part of plaintiff’s land was denied. It was also said that in any case suit is now barred by the provisions of Act, 1894, limitation etc.

6. The Trial Court formulated following 14 issues:

^^1- D;k oknh vkjkth ua0 23 jdck 31 fMlfey fLFkr ekStk HkyqvkbZ ijxuk jkjh tkSuiqj dk Hkwfe/kj dkfct jgk gS\

2- D;k tSlk fd okn i= dh iSk 3&4 ,oa 11 esa lanfHkZr gS oknh dh vkjkth ua0 23 jdck 31 fMlfey esa ls 7 fMlfey jdck izfroknh ,e-ih-ds-Vh- ekxZ ds fuekZ.k gsrq vf/kxzghr dj fy;k gS rFkk ml ij okLrfod :i ls lM+d fuekZ.k izfroknh }kjk 1970 esa dj fn;k x;k gS\

3- D;k izfroknh }kjk iz'uxr Hkwfe dk dksbZ izfrdj oknh dks iznku ugha fd;k x;k gS\

4- D;k tSlk fd okn i= dh iSjk 12 yxk;r 15 esa lanfHkZr gS oknh dh vkjkth vfèkxzg.k ds QyLo:i izfroknh }kjk de ls de 785522@& :0 crkSj izfrdj ns; gS\

5- D;k izLrqr nkok fucU/ku ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\

6- D;k izLrqr okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS vkSj U;k;ky; ‘kqYd de vnk dh x;h gS\

7- D;k nkok oknh /kkjk 34 fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\

8- D;k izLrqr nkok 80 lh-ih-lh ls ckf/kr gS\

9- D;k nkok oknh pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\

10- D;k izLrqr U;k;ky; dks izLrqr okn dks fu