# Purushottam v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 354 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-02 - **Case number:** Leading First Appeal No.865 of 2002 - **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/purushottam-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44253 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 354 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. First Appeal No.- 554 Of 2008 & Connected With Other Cases Purushottam ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for Appellant: Radhey Shyam, U.P. Singh, V.B. Singh Counsel for Respondents: Smt. Rekha Pundir These appeals arise from common judgment dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in 79 land acquisition references, the leading reference being Land Acquisition Reference No.212 of 1990 (Bijendra v. State of U.P. and others ) against which several first appeals were filed by National Thermal Power Corporation, through its General Manager as well as by the claimants. Several appeals were decided by the Division Bench by judgment dated 8.4.2015 passed in Leading First Appeal No.865 of 2002 ( National Thermal Power Corporation Through its G.M. v. State of U.P. and others ) In view of the aforesaid, all the appeals are partly allowed in terms of the judgment dated 8.4.2015 passed in Leading First Appeal No.865 of 2002 (Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Yateendra, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. These appeals arise from common judgment dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in 79 land acquisition references, the leading reference being Land Acquisition Reference No.212 of 1990 (Bijendra v. State of U.P. and others ) against which several first appeals were filed by National Thermal Power Corporation, through its General Manager as well as by the claimants. Out of which 69 such appeals were decided by the Division Bench by judgment dated 8.4.2015 passed in Leading First Appeal No.865 of 2002 ( National Thermal Power Corporation Through its G.M. v. State of U.P. and others ) and other connected appeals. 8 All. Purushottam Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 355 3. By the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal as under : "78. We are also of the view that considering the location and other potentiality of land acquired, as mentioned by S.L.A.O. and also noticed by Reference Court, the deduction of 35% is slightly on higher side and it should be 30% which would meet the ends of justice. 79. The correct and actual market rate as per award in question, therefore, would come to Rs. 40/- (round off) per sq. yard. The rest of the award with regard to amount of solatium, interest etc. is hereby confirmed. 80. In the result, the appeals preferred by claimant-tenure holders are partly allowed to the extent that deduction of 35% made by Reference Court is reduced to 30%. Similarly, the appeals preferred by N.T.P.C. are partly allowed to the extent that actual rate of compensation awarded by Reference Court stands reduced from Rs. 43/- per sq. yard to Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. The direction of Reference Court with respect to payment of solatium @ 30% and interest at different rates for different periods mentioned therein shall remain intact and is hereby confirmed. 81. All the appeals stand partly allowed in the manner as aforesaid. However, there shall be no order as to costs" 4. In view of the aforesaid, all the appeals are partly allowed in terms of the judgment dated 8.4.2015 passed in Leading First Appeal No.865 of 2002 ( National Thermal Power Corporation Through its G.M. v. State of U.P. and others ) and other connected appeals. The substitution applications in the aforenoted appeals are allowed and the delay in filing the substitution applications is condoned. ----------- 356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 356 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. S.C.C. Revision No.- 4 Of 2016 Dinesh Sahu ...Revisionist Versus Krishna Pal Yadav ...Opposite Party Counsel for Revisionist: Ravi Nath , Jitendra Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party: Vikas Sharma Present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 assails the judgement rendered by the court below in SCC Suit No. 0700012 of 2013 whereby the suit filed by the respondentplaintiff was decreed and a decree of eviction coupled with the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1700/- per month alongwith damages has been issued in his favour. The revisionist is a tenant of the shop in question. The revisionist having committed default in the payment of rent was issued a notice dated 4.12.2012 which was served on him on 5.12.2012. The notice issued to the revisionist was to be complied with on or before 4.1.2013 insofar as the payment of arrears of rent is concerned. The failure on the part of the revisionist-tenant in making payment of rent as claimed in terms of notice dated 4.12.2012, gave rise to the aforesaid suit which was filed on Feb. 19, 2013. Court observed that the court below while adjudicating upon the issue at hand has failed to consider the material admission of the landlord which ought to have been considered in determination of the real question, namely, whether the revisionist-defendant committed default in the payment of rent until the period of notice and recording a finding that the revisionist was in arrears of rent as on the date of issuance of notice clearly lacks the sanction of statute and such an illegality on the face of the impugned judgement, calls for interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court envisaged by virtue of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The impugned judgement passed by the court below suffers from a patent illegality and the for the reasons recorded above, the same is hereby set aside and the matter is relegated to the court below for consideration. The revision thus stands allowed in part. (Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) 1. Heard Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.