Court No. - 30 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 135 of 1993 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Gokhjaran Narayan Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Respondent Counsel :- Shivendra Bahadur With Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 134 of 1993 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Pushpa Devi Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Respondent Counsel :- Shivendra Bahadur With Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 136 of 1993 Petitioner :- State Respondent :- Gokharan Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Respondent Counsel :- Shivendra Bahadur Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Connect alongwith Civil Revision No.134 of 1993 and 136 of 1993.
Since in all the three revisions common controversy is involved, therefore all
are being decided by a common judgment and order, which is being passed in
this revision.
These writ petitions have been preferred against the judgment and order
rendered by the District Judge, Gorakhpur on 7.10.1991 rejecting the
objections put-forth by the State of U.P. in land acquisition proceedings for
which an exercise was taken in district Gorakhpur.
It emerges from the record that some agricultural land was acquired for public
purposes. Acquisition proceedings were carried out and an award was
rendered by the competent land acquiring authority. Compensation was
assessed, however, a dispute arose regarding payment of interest on the
compensation to be paid to the land owners. The acquisition proceedings were
also commenced.
The land owners claimed interest on the amount of award w.e.f. December,
1981. According to them the Court had awarded interest from the date of
taking over possession of the land to the date of actual payment of
compensation. In the objections put-forth by the State of U.P., the date of
possession was shown to be 19th May, 1987.
Learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the various
provisions contained in the relevant Land Acquisition Act and Rules framed
thereunder. He had laid stress that the possession could be treated to have
been taken w.e.f. 19.5.1987 and the State is to pay interest only from the said
date.
It was impressed upon the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur by the land
owners that the actual possession as provided in the law was taken from them
in December, 1981 as the land owners were divested of the land in
December, 1981 and all the necessary formalities were completed for taking
the possession by December, 1981.
The learned District Judge has taken into account the rival submissions and on
the basis of materials on record has found that the actual possession was taken
from the land holders in December, 1981. They were paid interest etc. The
land owners were declared to be entitled to receive compensation from
December, 1981, actual date of possession.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order dated 7.10.1991
passed by learned District Judge, Gorakhpur.
In view of the above, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010
Bhaskar