HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL No. - 395 of 1998 Court No. - 35 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel representing the appellant - Gas Authority of India Ltd. and learned Standing Counsel for the State. None is present for the private respondents. 2. The instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the appellant challenging the impugned award and decree dated 25.05.1998 passed by the court of VIth Additional District Judge, Etawah in L.A.R. No.230 of 1993 (Rani Kunwari vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the reference has been partly allowed and total compensation of Rs.2,37,314/- along with other statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisition Act, has been awarded to the land owners. 3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal for reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court and has valued the instant appeal at Rs.34,270/-, which is very small. 4. The attention of learned counsels for the appellant was drawn towards the U.P. Government Order dated 13.10.2016, which states that in all land acquisition appeals, which are valued at less than Rs.2 lakhs are not to be pursued by the State. In view of the above U.P. Government Order, the learned counsel for the appellant have submitted that this Court may not examine the issue on merits, since valuation of the appeal is meager. 5. In this regard, the U.P. Government Order dated 13.10.2016, which is relevant, is quoted below:- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Awadhesh Rai, Madhur Prakash, S.S.Bhatnagar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.C. Pandey, P.S. Kushwaha Gas Authority Of India Ltd. .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) "भू-अिधग्रहण सम्बिन्धत ऐसे मुकदमों में मा0 उच्च न्यायालय स्तर पर कोई अपील दायर नहीं की जायेगी, िजनमें शासन की देयता रू0 2;00 लाख (रूपया दो लाख) से कम है। भू-अिधग्रहण सम्बन्धी ऐसी सभी अपीलें जो मा० उच्च न्यायालय में लिम्बत है तथा िजसमें देयता रू0 2;00 लाख (रूपया दो लाख) से कम है, को मा० उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष आवेदन देकर वापस ले िलया जाएगा। उपरोक्त के सम्बन्ध में यह प्रितबन्ध रहेगा िक यिद िकसी संदभर् में पािरत आदेश शासन की नीित के िखलाफ हो या धोखा देकर/झूठ बोलकर/तथ्यों को िछपाकर/कपट पूवर्क प्राप्त िकया गया हो अथवा उक्त आदेश त्रुिटपूणर् दृष्टान्त (िप्रसीडेन्स) बन रहा हो अथवा उक्त आदेश से प्रितकर की दरें िनधार्िरत होती हो, तो न्याय िवभाग का परामशर् प्राप्त कर अपील की जायेगी। यिद छोटे मामलों में मूल्यांकन कम होने पर अपील नहीं की गयी है तो उसको बड़े मामलों के िलये दृष्टान्त (िप्रसीडेन्स) नहीं माना जायेगा और िनयमानुसार अपील दायर की जायेगी।" 6. In view of the meager amount of valuation of the instant appeal, keeping in view the above U.P. Government Order dated 13.10.2016, this Court is not inclined to examine issue of compensation, involved in this appeal, on merits. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is also dismissed, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. 8. However, dismissal of this appeal shall not come in the way of the appellant to contest appeal of higher valuation. Liberty is also granted to the appellant to file a recall application for recall of this order of dismissal of appeal on the ground of smallness of valuation, in case any technical objection is raised by other claimants for dismissal of some other appeal of higher valuation filed by the appellant and arising from the same acquisition. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 11. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs of this appeal. 12. Office is directed to prepare the decree, accordingly. September 19, 2025 Mayank FAPL No. 395 of 1998 2 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad