Disposed

Suraiya Naheed Jafar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2018WRIC/29242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this writ petition directing the State to examine if compensation enhancement applications were filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and decide on their maintainability within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to examine the petitioners' Section 28A application and decide on its maintainability and limitation within six months.

Suraiya Naheed Jafar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29242 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Suraiya Naheed Jafar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶6

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent No.3 to consider and decide their application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

¶7

It appears that the land of the petitioners was acquired vide notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 25.06.1988 and 04.02.1989 respectively in respect whereof award was made on 26.11.1991.

¶8

The petitioners claim that they have not preferred any reference but one of the villages filed L.A. Case No.2 of 1993, Shiv Shankar Vs. State of U.P. which was decided on 02.03.1996 by the District Judge.

¶9

The petitioners on the basis of the said decision claimed enhancement in compensation by moving application under Section 28A of the Act a copy of which has been filed as annexure-1 to the petition.

¶10

However, as the aforesaid judgement, order and award of the reference court was challenged in First Appeal No.63 of 1997 U.P. S.I.D.C. Vs. Shiv Shankar in the High Court which was decided on 27.08.2008, the petitioners could not press for the decision of their application filed under Section 28A of the Act.

¶11

Now once the award of the reference court has been upheld by the High Court, the petitioners are pressing for the decision of the above application.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we

¶13

dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent No.3 to examine as to whether any such application as alleged by the petitioners was filed by them under Section 28A of the Act on 02.01.1997 and if so whether the same is within limitation or maintainable and entitlement of the petitioners for enhancement of the compensation on the basis of the award passed in L.A.R. No.2 of 1997 in accordance with law most expeditiously if possible within next six months.

¶14

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.9.2018 piyush

Suraiya Naheed Jafar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraiya Naheed Jafar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshni Vs Union of India and Another

Virendar Pratap Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mubarak Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijendra Nath Upadhyay Vs Punjab National Bank and Another

Jay Prakash Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anita Patel Vs Union of India and 3 Others