Dismissed

Hari Krishna Singh and Another v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2018WRIC/23665/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition for absolute ground, holding it to be a clear abuse of the process of law. The court found that the petitioners had previously filed an identical petition which was dismissed without them challenging a relevant order or disclosing the execution of registered sale deeds transferring the land.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hari Krishna Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 2… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23665 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Hari Krishna Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶7

(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 (annexure no. 12 to the writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision on the pending representation of petitioners dated 12.12.2017 in accordance with law within the stipulated period (annexure no. 11 to the writ petition).

¶9

(iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine/revise the compensation of Gata Nos. 73, 82 and 139 stipulated in Village Majkhani, Pargana Mohamdabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau as per residential/Abadi rate (i.e. Rs.9,000/- per acre) and accordingly make the balance payment of compensation to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

¶10

Heard Sri J.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

Filing of the present writ petition clearly indicates the sheer abuse of process of law. Earlier also, the petitioners had filed a Writ Petition No. 56050 of 2017 (Hari Krishan Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court on almost similar facts, wherein the following reliefs were claimed by them.

¶13

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents concerned to determine the compensation of land of Gata Nos. 73, 82 and 139 situated in Village Mazakhani, Pargana Mohammadabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau, as per residential/Abadi rate (i.e. Rs.9,000/- per acre) and accordingly make full and final payment of compensation to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 28.02.2017 (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) of the petitioners.

¶15

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take possession over the land in question without making full and final payment of compensation to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

¶16

In the previous Writ-C No. 56050 of 2017, order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mau (annexure no. 11 to the writ petition), was annexed, wherein it was stated that Tehsildar, Sadar by its report dated 13.06.2017 has informed that the Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, has resolved to purchase the land situated in Village

¶17

¶18

Majkhani, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau by paying compensation four times to Rs. 40 lacs per hectare. The total of which would come to Rs. 160 lacs per hectare, as such, compensation was paid to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 160 lacs per hectare.

¶19

It has been further mentioned that the rate of the land was approved by the Uttar Pradesh Express Ways Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA). The copy of the said letter dated 24.08.2017, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, UPEIDA, Lucknow, was also served upon the petitioners but the said order/letter dated 24.08.2017 was not challenged in the previous writ proceedings.

¶20

Moreover, the land in question has been purchased by the UPEIDA from the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 by two separate sale deeds dated 05.09.2016 after paying consideration to the tune of Rs. 1,34,81,600/- and Rs. 13,56,160/- to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The factum of execution of the sale deed has been concealed in previous Writ-C No. 56050 of 2017 filed by the petitioners and it stood dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2017.

¶21

Despite dismissal of the said Writ-C No. 56050 of 2017, petitioners have again preferred the present writ petition and now through this writ petition, they are challenging the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 and have sought a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action on their application and to determine/revise the compensation awarded to them.

¶22

¶23

Perusal of the order dated 17.01.2018 reveals that the said order is nothing but a letter/communication sent by the Additional District Magistrate, Mau intimating the petitioners that their application dated 28.02.2017 has already been disposed of by vide order dated 24.08.2017 by the District Magistrate, Mau. Petitioner had already the knowledge of order dated 24.08.2017.

¶24

The order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the District Judge, Mau is the very same order, which was annexed as annexure no. 11 to the previous Writ-C No. 56050 of 2017 but the same was not challenged by the petitioners while filing the said writ petition. Now, the petitioners, after dismissal of the said writ petition, is indirectly seeking to have the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau quashed. It is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶25

It may be noted that in the present case, in fact the property in question has been transferred through registered sale deed executed between the parties and the petitioners have received the consideration, and at the time of receiving the consideration/compensation, they never raised any objection.

¶26

It may be noted that the land has not been transferred under the Land Acquisition Act but by execution of the sale deed, the same has not been challenged before any court of law. The land of the petitioners has been purchased by the UPEIDA through registered sale deeds by paying of Rs. 1,34,81,600/- and Rs. 13,56,160/- to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively, giving four times amount of the circle rate as already observed in the earlier part of

¶27

¶28

this judgment.

¶29

It may be further noted that in the sale deed executed by the petitioners, there is a clear recital that petitioners or their successors would never make any claim against the Department or in any Court with regard to payment of sale consideration.

¶30

The said clause reads as follows :-

¶31

rQlhy olwy;kch

¶32

dqy fodz; ewY; eq0 #i;s 13481600-00--------@&¼#i;s ,d djksM+ pkSrhl yk[k bD;klh gtkj N% lkS ek=½ dk vUrj.k fodzsrk Jh gfjd`".k mijksDr ds ¼cSad dk uke½ esa lapkfyr [kkrk la0 10143758467 Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad esa fnukad ¼15 fnu dh vof/k dk fnukad½ rd dj fn;k tk;sxkA fodzsrk vFkok mldk dksbZ okfjlku Hkfo"; esa mDr fodz; /kujkf'k ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh Hkh /kujkf'k vFkok ykHk ds fy, foHkkx ls dksbZ nkok ugha djsxk vkSj u gh bl lEcU/k esa fdlh U;k;ky; esa okn nk;j djsxkA ,Dlizslos cukrs le; vxj iSekbZ'k esa {ks=Qy de ik;k tkrk gS vFkok Hkqxrku xyrh ls vf/kd /kujkf'k dk gks tkrk gS vkSj fodzsrk vfrfjDr /kujkf'k Lo;a ugh ykSVkrk gS rks 12 izfr'kr C;kt izfr o"kZ dh nj ls Hkw&jkTkLo dh Hkkafr mRrj izns'k ,Dlizslos vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ¼;wihMk½ dks olwyus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA ;g Hkh fd mDr fodz; ls izkIr /kujkf'k ij vk;dj ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ;fn vk;dj curk gS rks mldh fodz; ds QyLo:i izkIr /kujkf'k esa ls lzksr ij gh fu;ekuqlkj dVkSrh dj yh tk,xh vkSj bl ij fodzsrk dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA

¶33

The aforesaid undertaking clearly indicates that the land in question was purchased through two separate registered sale deeds by the UPEIDA from the petitioners and was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. A clear undertaking was given by the petitioners in the sale deed that they will not raise any dispute or claim against the Department or in any Court with regard to payment of sale consideration.

¶34

The petitioners, after the dismissal of the

¶35

¶36

previous writ petition, are now trying to reopen the matter by challenging the order dated 24.08.2017, which was not challenged by them in the previous Writ-C No. 56050 of 2017, which stood dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2017. The factum of the execution of the sale deeds by them was concealed and not disclosed by the petitioners in the previous writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the rate on which the land was sold by them, once the sale deeds were executed way back in the year 2016.

¶37

It may further be noted that till date, the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the sale deed before any court of law.

¶38

In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶39

However, taking a lenient view of the matter, this time we are not imposing cost on the petitioners but do indicate that in future, they should be careful in filing such frivolous writ petition to avoid being liable to pay costs.

¶40

Date :- 19.7.2018 Nadim

Hari Krishna Singh and Another v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hari Krishna Singh and Another v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

D.K Chaturvedi Vs Additional District Megistrate and Another

Shabnam Zaheer Vs Union of India Ministry of Road Transport and 3 Others

Sumira Devi and Another Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Vivek Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Devi Shanker Mishra Vs State of U P and 13 Others