The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with the procedures for land acquisition, fair compensation, and protection of the landowner's rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

This revision is directed against the order dated 19-11-2009 passed in Execution Case No. 51-A/1991 by the III Additional District Judge, Sagar, whereby the petitioners/judgment debtors have been directed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent for the land acquired.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that the petitioner-State initiated an action for acquisition of the land measuring 0.21 acre, out of the land area of 1.38 acres, of Khasra No. 220/1 of village Dulchipur, Tahsil Banda, District Sagar, belonging to the respondent under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The purpose of acquiring the land, as notified in the notification was construction of a dam. It was found that as a whole the land sought to be acquired was not needed and some part of the land was returned. After passing of the award on 24-3-1969, the compensation was assessed and the amount was deposited in the Treasury, payable to the respondent. It was alleged that some lease was got executed and on the basis of such a lease, demands were made. The persons in the locality started making complaints with respect to such acquisition of land and payment of compensation and when the said complaints reached to the Collector, exercising suo motu power of revision, he cancelled the said lease granted in favour of the respondent on 13-1-1987. Such an order was not called in question anywhere but a demand was made by the respondent by filing a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 31-A/1991 as indigent person and the said suit was dismissed on 29-9-1993. The mutation in respect of the respondent was cancelled. Such an order was challenged up to the Commissioner unsuccessfully. The order of Commissioner was challenged before the Board of Revenue, which stood partly allowed granting Bhumiswami rights to the respondent/plaintiff vide order dated 3-5-2001 over the two acres of land. The said order was the subject-matter of challenge in W. P. No. 577/2002, which stood dismissed vide order dated 14-10-2008. It is contended that against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, a first appeal was preferred before this Court by the respondent and the same was partly allowed. In execution of the said judgment and decree, objection with respect to the claim of amount by the respondent was raised but the same has been dismissed, therefore, this revision is required to be filed.

3. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate that if the judgment and decree passed by this Court in the first appeal is looked into, it would be abundantly clear that only a part of the claim of the respondent was accepted by this Court. The judgment and decree of the Court below was set aside with respect to the Land Survey No. 220/1. The respondent was entitled to the compensation for the said land only. The said amount has already been deposited in the Treasury, which the respondent has not accepted, therefore, the Executing Court was not right in holding that the respondent was entitled to the interest and total amount of Rs. 38,85,034/-. Such a huge amount was not to be paid to the respondent. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

4. Refuting such submissions of learned Government Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the dam was to be constructed in the year 1964. Emergent provisions of the Act were exercised while acquiring the land of the respondent. Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued and a meagre amount of compensation was paid. The dispute was raised with respect to the quantum of compensation, area which was sought to be acquired, but instead of deciding the same, illegal proceedings were initiated against the respondent by cancelling the lease obtained by him. All this has resulted in long series of litigation before the Revenue Court, ultimately before this Court and when the relief was granted by the