Disposed

Satish and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2019WRIC/17253/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioners' pending application regarding land acquisition compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act and pass an order within four months after issuing notice.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the second respondent to consider the petitioners' application and pass an appropriate order expeditiously, within four months.

Satish and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17253 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Satish And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Yadav,Dinesh Shankar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

The petitioners are twelve in number. Their grievance is that their land has been acquired but they have not been paid compensation in terms of the order dated 25th November, 2018 passed by the Court of Reference in respect of the same notification.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application under Section 58-A of the Land Acquisition Act has been filed within three months from the date of award of the Reference Court but the same has not been considered by the appropriate authority.

¶8

Against this background, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. The reliefs sought in the writ petition read as under:

¶9

" I. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to decide the application of the petitioners filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act which is still pending before Collector/ Upper Zila Adhikari (Administration) Incharge Land Acquisition Bulandshahar within certain stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

II. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the same amount of compensation to the petitioner as has been given to one Laxman Singh as well as other farmers in pursuance of the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by learned Special Judge/ Upper Zila Judge SC/ST Act Court No. 2 Bulandshahar in reference no. 114/1990."

¶11

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶12

Standing Counsel.

¶13

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider the cause of the petitioners and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order. Needless to say that before passing the order the second respondent shall issue notice to the concerned persons, who are likely to be affected by the order.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2019 SKT/-

Satish and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish and 11 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Praveen and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sagun Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others