Disposed

Prem Sudha Srivastava v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2019WRIC/16131/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitioner sought mandamus for compensation and protection of house against unnotified demolition due to alleged underpayment in land acquisition. Court directed District Magistrate to decide pending representation within three months and disposed of the petition without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to decide the representation dated 12.05.2018 within three months from production of certified copy of this order.

Prem Sudha Srivastava Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16131 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Prem Sudha Srivastava Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mall Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashok Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶6

"i. To issue a writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the respondent no.3 to decide the reference no.15188180179615 initiated on the representation dated 12.05.2018 of the petitioner and also directed the respondents to inquire the acquired land and pay fair compensation to the petitioner.

¶7

ii. To issue a writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the respondents not to demolish the house in question of the petitioner without notice and pay fair compensation."

¶8

According to the petitioner, he purchased a piece of land in Gata No.484 measuring 0.19 hectare land, thereafter, constructed two storeyed building. It is further averred that National Highways Authority acquired 0.034 hectare land from Gata No.484 for construction of National Highway No.29, GorakhpurVaranasi, necessary publications were made by respondent No.2 under the National Highways Authority Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, the land of petitioner was acquired to the tune of 0.006 hectare for which certificate was issued by Tehsildar on 28.09.2016. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 has paid compensation only for 0.002 hectare of land instead of the acquired land measuring 0.006 hectare. Petitioner made a representation dated 12.05.2018, which is on record. According to the petitioner, the said representation was forwarded by respondent No.4 to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 26.09.2018. Further, as the compensation has not been paid, the respondent-authorities are trying to demolish the house of petitioner. In regard to the same, petitioner had again represented before the District Magistrate on 22.03.2019.

¶9

Shri Rajesh Kumar Mall, learned counsel for petitioner submits that neither entire compensation of land acquired by the respondent-authorities had been paid to the petitioner, nor any notice has been given for demolishing the house of petitioner, and representation of petitioner is pending consideration before respondent No.3.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner; Shri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2; and learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶11

As no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending, as such the same is being decided at the admission stage.

¶12

In view of the above, we direct the respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to decide the representation of petitioner dated 12.05.2018 expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶13

Needless to say, we have not expressed our opinion and the authorities concerned shall decide the claim in accordance with law.

¶14

The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.5.2019 A.N. Mishra

Prem Sudha Srivastava v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Sudha Srivastava v. Union of India 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

Abhilash Menon Vs Deepti Ummat

M/S Avni Int Udyog and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Agarwal Machinery Stores and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nitish Agrawal Vs Pragya Agrawal

Smt. Shakshi Vs Shivang Bindal

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