The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an order denying compensation for land acquisition and directing payment of compensation. The Court declined to interfere with the District Magistrate's findings.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioners advised to initiate appropriate proceedings for demarcation of land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 600 of 2018
Petitioner :- Gopal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Deo Upahdayay,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Sonebhadra (Annexure No.7) to this writ petition).
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to give the compensation with regard to the acquisition of the land being Gata No.424Ka, (Area about 0.089 hectare) and 428Ka, (Area about 0.151 hectare) situated at village-Kamhari, Pargana-Barhar, Tehsil Roborts Ganj, (Dharam Shala Chauk) District Robarts Ganj, of the petitioners."
It is alleged that the petitioners along with some other persons are owners and bhumidhars of Gata No. 424-Ka area 0.0890 hectares and Gata No. 428-Ka area 0.1510 hectares situated in village Kamhari, Pargana Barhar, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra. It is alleged that for widening of Varanasi Shaktinagar Highway by the Authority concerned, the aforesaid land of the petitioners has been taken by the respondentAuthority for making a Bridge but no compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
With regard to the aforementioned Gata No. 424-Ka and 428Ka, it appears that a writ petition (Writ-C No.4963 of 2017) was filed which was disposed of by order dated 3 February 2017 with a direction to the District Magistrate to pass a reasoned order on the representation filed by the petitioner after hearing the parties concerned including the officer of the Public Works Department.
The District Magistrate, Sonebhadra considered the representation filed in pursuance of the order dated 3 February 2017 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition after affording opportunity to the petitioners. The District Magistrate in the aforesaid order has stated that no evidence was filed by the petitioners by which it could be ascertained whether Gata
No. 424-Ka and 428-Ka or any part thereof was taken possession of for road construction. As a matter of fact it has been observed on the basis of report of Tehsildar Sadar and Chetak Enterprises Limited that whatever work has been done with regard to the road construction is within the controlled area with respect to the right of way situated within 220 ft. from centre of the road. The Tehsildar's report states that Gata No. 424 and 428 is in four Khata numbers and since there is no demarcation made on the plan, as such the portion of the petitioners and other Khata holders cannot be determined. This is coupled with the observations of the District Magistrate that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence with regard to portion, if any, of Gata No. 424-Ka and 428-Ka being used for road construction. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioners was dismissed.
We have carefully perused the order of the District Magistrate. The parties were heard and after considering all material facts and proper application of mind, the District Magistrate has rejected the petitioner's representation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are entitled to compensation as land has been utilised by the department. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the findings recorded by the District Magistrate in the impugned order and learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any infirmity.
Thus, we decline to entertain this petition. However, it is always open for the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings for demarcation of their land in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2018 GS
(Dilip Gupta, J.)
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the District Magistrate's order denying compensation and for mandamus directing payment of compensation be entertained.
Whether the District Magistrate's finding that no evidence was produced to prove land portion was utilized for road construction be disturbed.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as land has been utilised by the department.
Gopal And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Dilip Gupta
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
