Allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 May 2019WRIC/17258/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a claim for additional land acquisition compensation due to lack of reasons. The Court set aside the impugned order as arbitrary and remitted the matter to the respondent for a reasoned decision within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside previous compensation claims was set aside and the matter remanded to Respondent No. 3 to pass a reasoned order within three weeks.

Praveen and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17258 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Praveen And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hira Lal Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya

¶4

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

¶5

Petitioners are nine in numbers. They have instituted this writ petition for the following relief:-

¶6

"a. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.11.2015 passed by respondent no.3.

¶7

b. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to provide 10% developed land as well as 64.7% Additional Compensation in view of the full bench judgment Gajraj and others Versus State of U.P. and others in respect of the land acquired of the petitioner no.1 plot no.344 Khasra No.699/2/2, 737/2/2, petitioner no.2 plot no.305 Khasra No.748, petitioner no.3 plot no.8 Khasra No.631, petitioner no.4 to 9 Khasra No.740, and 670 village Surajpur, Pargana Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar"

¶8

Previously, petitioners have instituted a Writ-C No.57766 of 2013 (Praveen and 9 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others), wherein they sought a direction upon respondents to pay an additional compensation in respect of their land which was subject matter of acquisition.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioners is that their land was acquired vide notification dated 13.9.1996 and 28.10.1996 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively. The said land was acquired for the plan of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. This Court after referring the judgment of Gajraj Singh has disposed of the writ petition with the following observation :-

¶10

"In view of above, the petitioners herein are entitled to be extended the same benefit as observed in the case of Gajraj (Supra) quoted above.

¶11

Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations made in the case of Gajrat (Supra)"

¶12

From the record, it appears that respondents Noida Authority filed a Recall/Review Application No.93215 of 2015 in Writ C No.57766 of 2013. In the said writ petition, recall/review was dismissed by this Court on 24.7.2015. Pursuant thereto by the impugned order, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected.

¶13

We find that no reason has been mentioned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The relevant part of the order reads as under :-

¶14

" ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa izkf/kdj.k cksMZ }kjk vkns'k esa fufgr vf/klwpukvksa ls vkPNkfnr leLr d`"kdksa dks pkgs mUgksus fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gks ;k ugh vFkok muds }kjk izLrqr dksbZ ;kfpdk fujLr dj nh x;h dks Hkh 64-70 % dh nj ls dsoy vfrfjDr izfrdj Hkqxrku dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA ftl vf/klwpuk@? kks"k.kk }kjk ;kphx.k dh Hkwfe vftZr dh x;h gS] og ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dh iwoZihB ds mDr vkns'k fnukad 21-10-2011 esa lfEefyr ugh gSA vLrq ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 21-10-2011 o izkf/kdj.k cksMZ ds uhfrxr fu.kZ; ls Hkh vPNk ugha gS rFkk izR;kosndx.k 64-70 % vfrfjDr izfrdj o fodflr vkcknh Hkw[k.M gsrq vgZ ugha gSA "

¶15

It is a well-settled law that an order becomes lifeless, if it does not contain any reason. The reason demonstrates the application of mind. In absence of reason, any administrative or quasi-judicial order becomes arbitrary. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the cases of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, and Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, (1973) 2 SCC 836 , and the other judgments in the cases of Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 , and Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 . Recently, the Supreme Court in J. Ashoka v. University of Agricultural Science and others, (2017) 2 SCC 609, has again considered the requirement of giving reason.

¶16

In view of the above, we set aside this order without calling any counter affidavit as the order itself clearly states that no reason has been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners.

¶17

Accordingly, we remit the matter back to respondent no.3 to reconsider the matter, afresh and pass the appropriate and reasoned order. The said exercise be undertaken by the respondent within three weeks.

¶18

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed . Order Date :- 20.5.2019 S. Singh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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

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

Sagun Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others