By the Court.—The challenge in this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short ‘Act’) is to the award/judgment dated 7.11.2009 and decree dated 12.11.2009 passed by Smt. Saroj Yadav, 2nd Additional District Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar, by means of which the reference preferred by the claimant’sappellants under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation has been rejected.

2. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State Government at the instance of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur (for short ‘Corporation’) for a planned Industrial Development in District Bulandshahar. Notifications under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act were published on 14.7.1987 and 26.9.1987 respectively. 1789.8438 Acres (286 Bigha 3 Biswa) of land situated in village Kasna, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar was acquired. 10 Bigha of land (plot Nos. 34 and 37/2) in the said village belonging to the claimants was also acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) made an award on 26.9.1989. As per the said award, the claimants were entitled to grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10775.06/- per bigha (Rs. 3.56/- per square yard) alongwith other statutory benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the said award the appellants moved an application before the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Judge for determining the market value of the land.

4. Before the SLAO, the appellants led oral and documentary evidence. In support of their claim, the appellants examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2. Apart from oral evidence the appellants also filed documentary evidence. They inter alia relied upon judgment dated 30.3.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahar in LAR No. 542/1992, Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. and others and 2 other connected LAR’s, judgment dated 7.3.2005 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T.), Gautambudh Nagar in LAR No. 124/2002, Kanwar Singh and another v. State of U.P., and judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in LAR No. 38/1990, Genda Singh v. State of U.P. and 13 other connected LAR’s.

5. The SLAO rejected application under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the appellants were unable to place any sale-deed as exemplar and were unable to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of their claim. Reliance placed by the appellants on the judgments pertaining to the acquisition of land in the same village arising out of the same notification was discarded by the Reference Court by stating that the said judgments were of a Court of coordinate jurisdiction and were not binding. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the following observations made by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment:

lanHkZdrkZx.k dh vksj ls dgk x;k fd muds }kjk i=koyh ij tks fu.kZ;ksa dh izfrfyfi;kW nkf[ky dh xbZ gS muds vk/kkj ij lanHkZdrkZx.k dh Hkwfe dk izfrdj c<+kdj iznku fd;k tkuk pkfg,A lanHkZdrkZx.k }kjk lwph 22x ls] 25x rFkk 45x ls tks fu.kZ; dh izfr;kWA nkf[ky dh xbZ gS] og lekukarj {ks=kf/kdkj j[kus okys U;k;ky; dh gS] tks fd bl U;k;ky; ij ck/;dkjh ugha gSA vr% i=koyh ij vHkh rd miyC/k lk{; ls ;g fl) ugha gksrk gS fd fo'ks"k Hkwfe v/;kfIr ij vHkh vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkfu.khZr izfrdj dh /kujkf'k vi;kZIr gSA vr% ;g okn&fcUnq rnkuqlkj lanHkZdrkZx.k ds fo#) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA

English Translation by the Court

It was contended from the side of reference makers that on the basis of the copies of judgments filed by them, they must be awarded higher compensation for their land. Copies of judgment filed by the reference makers, from list 22 Ga to 25 Ga and 45 Ga, are of Court having coordinate jurisdiction and hence not binding on this Court. Therefore, it does not prove from the evidence available on record till now, that amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition