HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL No. - 765 of 1992 Court No. - 35 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. Shri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant is present. He has filed personal affidavits of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Authority, which are taken on record. 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 28.10.1991 passed by the Court of Shri H.S. Sharma, Special/Additional District Judge, Mathura in L.A.R. No.84 of 1986, Ram Prasad vs. State of U.P. and another. 3. Learned counsel submits that as of today, the liability of the Authority with regard to the compensation payable to the landowners is in excess of Rs. 10/- lakhs, which is above the ceiling of Rs. 2/- lakhs described in the U.P. Government Order dated 13.10.2016, as such, the above G.O. is not applicable to the instant appeal. 4. Learned counsel very fairly admitted that the Authority has not calculated that liability, which arises on account of the Award passed by the Reference Court after subtracting the amount awarded by the Collector. 5. Learned counsel further admitted that on the date when the instant appeal was filed, the liability was only Rs. 1,54,681.32/-. Since the aforesaid liability is below Rs. 2 lakhs, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions of the U.P. Government Order dated 13.10.2016 are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 6. In this regard, the U.P. Government Order dated 13.10.2016, which is relevant, is quoted below:- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : D.S. Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rahul Sahai Secretary Mathuravirindavan Development Authority .....Appellant(s) Ram Prasad And Another .....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।" 7. 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. 9. 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. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 12. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs of this appeal. 13. Office is directed to prepare the decree, accordingly. September 23, 2025 Rama Kant/Mayank FAPL No. 765 of 1992 2 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad