Dismissed

M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2018WRIC/11493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ not pressing its case, seeking liberty to file a revision and interim application before the revisional authority regarding additional compensation recovery. The court disposed of the petition as not pressed with liberty granted to file the necessary applications within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file revision and interim application within two weeks; no coercive recovery for four weeks.

M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11493 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents not to recover the additional compensation from the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by the Full Bench in Gajraj & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.¹ .

¶6

In similar matters the Court had passed interim orders that till the next date of listing, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the additional compensation. However, when this matter was taken up, it was pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court has passed final orders in the matter. It is for this reason that no interim order was passed and the matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel to place the order.

¶7

Learned counsel has placed the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.- 62201 of 2017 (M/S Strategic Developers Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. And Another) connected with 11 other matters on 21 March 2018 and the same is reproduced below:-

¶8

"Heard Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate, and Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

¶9

Counsel appearing for the petitioners do not press these writ petitions and seek liberty to the petitioners to take a remedy of revision under subsection (3) of Section 41 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, against the additional/enhanced amount being charged from them in view of the additional compensation payable to farmers in terms of the judgment of this Court in Gajraj & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., [2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB)] and seek

¶10

1 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB)

¶11

direction to the revisional authority to consider revision applications within time frame, allowing the petitioners to raise all contentions, as raised in the present writ petition. They also pray for continuing the interim order passed by this Court for a period of 10 days, to enable them to make an application for interim relief before the revisional authority. Counsel appearing for the State has no objection for passing such an order. In view thereof, we dispose of these writ petitions by the following order:

¶12

The petitions are disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners to file revision applications under sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 within a period of two weeks from today, alongwith applications for interim relief. If petitioners file revision applications and the applications for interim relief, the revisional authority shall consider their applications for interim relief within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the applications. For a period of four weeks, the interim order passed by this Court shall remain operative.

¶13

It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined merits of the case and the revisional authority may consider and decide the revisions as well as applications for interim relief on merits in accordance with law. In any case, we direct the revisional authority to decide revision applications, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing, on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the interim order passed by this Court. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.

¶14

It is needless to mention that the revisional authority shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the respondent Development Authority also."

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent no. 1 while Shri A.B. Singhal, learned counsel appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this petition may also be disposed of in the same terms.

¶16

This petition is, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision application under sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 within a period of two weeks from today, alongwith an application for interim relief. If petitioner files the revision application and the application for interim relief, the revisional authority

¶17

shall consider the application for interim relief within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the application. For a period of four weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the additional compensation. However, the Revisional Authority shall decide the revision application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of filing on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the interim order passed by this Court. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.4.2018 Arvind

¶19

(Dilip Gupta, J.)

¶20

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarnail Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Rajit Ram Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Sri Rama Shankar Gaur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishwanath Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumat Pal Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Manish Majumdar Vs Cantonment Board Office and 8 Others