Disposed

Nirmala Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2019WRIC/10199/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought compensation for land utilized for highway widening. The Court declined to adjudicate the claim on merits due to disputed factual questions regarding co-tenure and prior compensation. Instead, the petitioners were directed to submit a fresh representation to the Collector for a decision within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file a fresh representation before the Collector Varanasi within 15 days; the Collector to decide the representation within three months.

Nirmala Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10199 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Nirmala Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K.Singh,J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶6

The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking a direction to the Collector Varanasi, the respondent no. 2, to pay compensation to the petitioners, who are four in numbers, at the circle rate as existing at present for the plots of the petitioners which were utilized for widening of Bhadohi-Kapsethi Babatpur State Highway.

¶7

It is stated that for construction of four lanes of Bhadhohi Kapsethi Babatpur State Highway, the land of the petitioners was utilized without any formal acquisition. The plots of the petitioners are said to be Arazi Nos. 555 and 557 area 850 square meters in Village Kuru, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi. It is stated that compensation at the rate of Rs. 7500/- per square meter as per the then existing circle rate was paid to the petitioners of writ petition no. 24520 of 2016 in terms of the order of the High Court dated 24.5.2016 passed in that writ petition and one Kamlesh who is real brother of the petitioners 2 and 3.

¶8

It is not known as to whether the petitioners are co-tenure holders of the plots in dispute and as per terms and conditions under which the same was taken over by the State whether Kamlesh took compensation or not and if so whether he has

¶9

been paid compensation as a co-tenure holder. These are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in the present writ petition.

¶10

We dispose of this writ petition with the observation that in case the petitioners prefer a fresh representation before the Collector Varanasi within fifteen days from today in respect of their grievance as raised in the present writ petition, the respondent no. 2, Collector Varanasi, shall decide the representation in accordance with law within a further period of three months. It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners on merits.

¶11

Order Date :- 28.3.2019 Pratima

¶12

(Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.) (B. Amit Sthalekar,J.)

Nirmala Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Devi and 3 Others 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Chauhan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Keshar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sultan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sudhir Kaushik and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Chief Secry. and 3 Others

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalta and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others