Disposed

Anoop Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2019WRIC/13441/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought mandamus for expeditious disposal of a pending application regarding alleged wrongful inclusion of his land in acquisition. The court directed the District Collector to decide the application within three months via a reasoned order after issuing notice to the opposing party.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's application expeditiously within three months by issuing notice to the respondent and passing a reasoned order.

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

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13441 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Anoop Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vrindavan Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Present petition has been filed for the following relief :-

¶6

"I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondents authorities (respondent no.2 and 3) to pass appropriate order in pending application, protect the possession of the petitioner over the petitioner's Khasra no.26 (0.114 Hectare) from acquiring over which petitioner's khasra no.26 (0.114 Hectare) and his old abadi and house is situated in village Nai Phal, Pargana Dasna, District Ghaziabad."

¶7

Case of the petitioner is that his father, Sukhpal was the owner of Khasra No.26 measuring 0.114 hectare sutuated at Village Naiphal, Pargana Dasna, District Ghaziabad. Sometimes in the year, 2009, State Government acquired 92.29219 hectare land of the aforesaid village for Ghaziabad Development Authority. Necessary notification under Sections 4 and 6 was made. Father of the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.178/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghaziabad on the ground that the land in question was not part of acquisition and respondent no.4 was taking possession forcibly.

¶8

According to the petitioner Khata No.250 which comprises of Khasra Nos.48 and 49 was acquired under the said acquisition proceedings and he does not contest for the said land. The said suit filed by the father of the petitioner was decreed by the Court below in regard to Khasra No.26 on 22.7.2014, against the said order no appeal till date has been filed by respondent no.4 or any other party. It was on 13.3.2012 and 23.8.2011 that respondent no.4 had sent a letter to respondent no.2 i.e. Additional District Collector (L.A.), Ghaziabad stating therein that due to some inadvertence Khasra No.26 was wrongly included in notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. An enquiry was set up and Lekhpal & Tehsildar submitted their report to the Deputy Collector, it is

¶9

mentioned that Khasra No.26 over which old abadi and house of petitioner is situated has been wrongly mentioned under the land acquisition proceedings. Further no compensation has been prepared or given to the petitioner. It was on 20.9.2014 that respondent no.2 had written letter to respondent no.3 regarding his advice for denotifying the Khasra No.26. According to petitioner till date, no action has been taken by any of the authorities. Petitioner raising his grievance had moved an application before respondent no.3 on 2.4.2019, which is pending consideration.

¶10

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2, Sri Vrindavan Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and with the consent of the parties, matter is being taken on Board and being decided at this stage only without issuing notice to respondent no.4.

¶11

As the sole grievance of the petitioner is that his application is pending before respondent no.3, we, therefore, direct respondent no.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and decide his application, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order. The respondent no.3 before passing the said order shall also issue notice and hear the respondent no.4.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.5.2019 S. Singh

Anoop Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Singh 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

Shambhavi Kant and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arvind Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Mani Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

M/S Asha Ram Contractors Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Karamveer Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Farooq Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another