Disposed

Yadan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2019WRIC/18369/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to allot 4% developed land. The court directed the third respondent to examine the petitioners' grievances and pass a reasoned order within three months after receiving the certified copy.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.3 to examine petitioners' grievance and pass a reasoned order within three months; writ petition disposed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18369 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Yadan Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya

¶4

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

¶5

Petitioners, who are 3 in number, have filed the present petition for the following relief;-

¶6

"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus commanding the Greater Noida Authority to allot remaining 4% developed land in light of judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Mahar Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others connected with leading case Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others."

¶7

Petitioners were owner of Khasra no.80 measuring 1.8210 hectare and Khasra no.317 measuring 1.6090 hectare situated at Village Khanpur, Pargana-Dankaur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar. The State Government issued notification under Section 4(1)/17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 31.1.2008 for planned Industrial Development in District Gautam Buddha Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 30.06.2008. The said notification was challenged through large numbers of writ petitions and this Court in leading case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided the same by judgment and order dated 21.10.2011. Petitioners also challenged the said notification through Writ Petition No.46638 of 2011 (Mahar Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). It has been stated that the petitioners have already received additional compensation of 64.70% and have also been allotted 6% developed land as per the policy of Greater Noida Authority.

¶8

Present petition has been filed for direction for the allotment of remaining

¶9

4% developed land in light of judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 in the case of Gajraj and others (supra).

¶10

We have heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2, Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and perused the records of the case.

¶11

As no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending, as such, with the consent of the parties, we direct respondent no.3 to look into the grievance of petitioners and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the petitioners dated 16.1.2019 in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 S. Singh

Yadan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadan Singh and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Pant Vs Smt. Ritambhara @ Shikha

Smt. Jimmy Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar Vs Manorma Devi

Seth Ratan Lal Entertainment Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anurag Upadhyay and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Balle and Another Vs Government of India and 10 Others