Dismissed

Madan Pal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019A227/2068/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 petition, the petitioner challenged a District Judge's order in a land acquisition reference, alleging forgery in a report dividing a plot to usurp compensation. The single-judge bench dismissed the petition, holding that rehearing evidence and reappraisals are not permissible under Article 227 jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2018 was dismissed.

Madan Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2068 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Madan Pal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mayank Yadav,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

No one present for respondent no.3.

¶7

Heard Shri Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh learned counsel for respondent nos.6, 7 and 8 and Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5.

¶8

The petition has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 27.11.2018 passed by District Judge, Meerut in land acquisition reference no.06 of 2018 on 27.11.2018.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that land Khasara no.14 which was acquired by railways is an undivided plot, and petitioners are also co-sharers of above undivided Khasara No.14 and being co-sharer are owners of each and every part of land; that the learned Additional Collector, Land Acquisition, Meerut has acted wrongly in holding that above plot Khasara No.14 is divided into 9 parts and only part 14M/5 recorded in the name of Harswaroop, respondent no.6 and 14M/6 recorded in the name of Smt. Manju and Smt. Kusum Lata, respondent nos.7 and 8 were acquired who have been given compensation; that report dated 31.8.2017 at Annexure-4 showing division of plot no.14M in 9 portions recorded in the name of different persons is wrong, incorrect and a forged report has been obtained by respondent nos.6 to 8 for usurping compensation; that learned District Judge has acted wrongly in relying on above report and not considering that it was forged.

¶10

Per Contra learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 8 and Chief Standing Counsel supported the impugned order by contending that it is clear from report at Annexure-4 that plot no.14M area 3.192 hectare is a big plot recorded as Barren land ( banjar) in the name of Goan Sabha out of which 2.302 hectare was allotted to various landless persons and out of its parts 14/5 and 14/6 an area 0.1730 and 0.1448 total 0.3178 hectare was acquired for dedicated corridor; that learned District Judge in its impugned order has observed that "at no point of time the objector for the first party appears to have filed any suit for partition holding or share of any individual person before the competent court before acquisition of land"; that Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the extract of Khatauni shows that on Khata no.0.0318 name of Sukhbir Singh, the predecessor of petitioners was recorded over Khasara no.14M area 0.0630 which tallies with report at Annexure-4, page 31 where at sl.no.3 at Khata no.318 names of petitioners have been recorded mentioning Khata No.14M area 0.0630.

¶11

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that learned counsel for petitioners has failed to show any manifest error of fact and law in the impugned order or any perversity in the findings recorded by District Judge, Meerut.

¶12

It is settled principles of law that reappraisal of evidence is not permitted within exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶13

In view of discussions made above, prayer for quashing of impugned order dated 27.11.2018 is misconceived and petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶15

However, petitioners are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before competent Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 VS

Madan Pal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Pal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Ram and Anr. Vs Anil Tiwari and 2 Others

Mahesh and 5 Others Vs M/S Satyawati Hospital and 2 Others

Smt. Pramila Devi and 3 Ors. Vs Ghura Yadav Deceased and 5 Ors.

Gaurav Sharma Vs Principal Judge Family and Another

Bechu Vs Triveni and 11 Others

Ashok Gautam Vs Smt. Raj Kuari and 7 Ors.