Remanded

Dharamvir Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2019WRIC/16494/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the collector to decide the petitioners' representation regarding miscalculation of land area and compensation within four months. The matter was disposed of after the parties consented to an expedited hearing.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authorities to decide the petitioners' representation dated 21.4.2018 by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, preferably within four months.

Dharamvir Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16494 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharamvir Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Rai,Durgesh Kumar Singh,Samarath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Pratap Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶6

"i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent- authorities to disburse/pay the remaining compensation amount to the petitioners as demanded by the petitioners and determined by the Additional Collector (L.A.) Sanyukt Sanghatan, Ghaziabad.

¶7

ii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Additional Collector (L.A.) Sanyukt Sanghatan Ghaziabad to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 21.4.2018 (Annexure no.13 to this writ petition), expeditiously."

¶8

Petitioners land has been acquired by the State for respondent no.4 in the year 1962 after due notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short "Act") on 9.2.1962 and thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 20.5.1962. An award was passed on 28.9.1977. Some of the tenure holders filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge being case No.304 of 1977, which was decided on 31.3.1987. Against the said order the State filed First Appeal No.668 of 1987, which was decided on 14.10.2003 and this Court fixed the rate of compensation @ Rs.8.50 per square yard. Against the order of this Court UPSIDC filed a S.L.P. No.1672 of 2004, before the Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.1455 of 2004. Claimant, Hem Chand and others also preferred a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.1456 of 2004. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20.5.2009.

¶9

Case of the petitioners is that they had not challenged the judgment and order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in reference proceeding and had filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act after the judgment of the reference Court on 31.3.1987. The said application was filed on 12.6.1987. The case of the petitioners is that their application was kept pending and was not decided and they sought information under the Right to Information Act. Thereafter the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.18449 of 2016, which was

¶10

decided on 26.4.2016 and the Collector, Ghaizabad was directed to decide the application under Section 28-A of the Act within three months. As the said application was not decided within the stipulated period, petitioners filed contempt petition no.2100 of 2017.

¶11

According to the petitioners, the respondent authorities had paid the compensation along with interest calculated till 30.6.2017 on 13.4.2018. According to the petitioners after receiving the compensation they have came to know that the area of plots were not properly calculated/miscalculated and the amount of compensation has to be determined/decided on the basis thereof.

¶12

The petitioners had made a representation before respondent no.3 on 21.4.2018, Annexure 13 to the writ petition, which is pending consideration.

¶13

We have heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Swapnil Kumar for respondent no.4 and 5.

¶14

No useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending and, therefore, with the consent of the parties the matter is taken on the board.

¶15

In view of the above, we direct respondent no.3 to look into the grievance of the petitioners and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 21.4.2018 by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.5.2019 AKJ

Dharamvir Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamvir Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Surendra Gupta Vs Smt. Anita Gupta

Sameer Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deependra Singh Chauhan @ Deepu Chauhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others