Disposed

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

Allahabad HC17 May 2019WRIC/16983/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing NOIDA to decide their representations regarding land acquisition compensation benefits pending since 2017. The court directed the authority to decide the matter within three months without expressing its own opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed New Okhla Industrial Development Area (NOIDA) to decide the petitioners' representations regarding additional compensation within three months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16983 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bheesm Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Rai,Ashish Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Petitioners, who are five in number, have filed the present petition for the following reliefs:

¶6

"(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 02.01.2017 and 07.09.2018 accordance with law.

¶7

(B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and further direct the respondent no.3 to provide the benefit of the petitioners in the light of Judgment of Gajraj Singh."

¶8

Petitioners are sons of late Khajan Singh, who was the owner in possession of Khata No.51, Khasra Nos.172, 306, and 385 situated in Village Sorkha, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶9

According to the petitioners, their land was acquired sometimes in the year 2006-2007 and award was made in the year 2011. After death of father of the petitioners, names of petitioners were mutated in the revenue records. According to petitioners, their father received the awarded amount, but in the year 2011 pursuant to the Government notification, they are entitled to additional compensation of 64.70% and 10% of developed area. According to the petitioners, they have moved an application for the benefit of the same to the authorities concerned. According to the petitioners, 5% of the

¶10

developed plot was given to the petitioners and their mother. Unfortunately, mother of the petitioners also died, as such on 02.06.2016, they moved an application for dividing the plots in name of petitioners. On 02.01.2017 and 07.09.2018, they moved an application for extending the benefit as granted by this Court in case of Gujraj Singh and others. The said representation is pending consideration.

¶11

We have heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶12

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken on board and is decided in terms of Rules of this Court. As the representation of the petitioners is pending consideration with the respondent-authorities and the sole prayer of petitioners is that their representations dated 02.01.2017 and 07.09.2018 be decided. We, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, direct the New Okhla Industrial Development Area (NOIDA) to decide the representation of the petitioners, which are annexed as Annexure-7 to this petition expeditiously in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

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

¶14

The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 17.5.2019

¶16

A.N. Mishra

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheesm Singh 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

Joganhi @ Raj Kumari and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S Tejaswa Gas Service Vs State of U P and 2 Others

M/S Modern Cultivation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radha Krishna Infra Tower Limited and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Gopal Prasad Agrawal and Another Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and 2 Others

Irshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others