Dismissed

Chhakkan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2019WRIC/34513/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, without expressing an opinion on merits, disposed of a writ petition regarding delayed land acquisition award. It directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's application for compensation determination under Section 64 of the 2013 Act within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to consider and decide the pending application filed by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act for determination of compensation within three months.

Chhakkan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34513 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Chhakkan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Neeraj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was acquired in the year 2003, but the award was passed on 30.06.2016, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

¶7

It is next contended that since in the intervening period, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stood repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Land Acquisition Act) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the compensation should have been determined in accordance with Section 64 of the Act, but in the case of petitioner, the compensation was computed in accordance with the provisions of Repealed Act. He, therefore, contended that application was filed by the petitioner on 15.04.2017 for determination of the compensation in respect of their acquired land as per provisions of Section 64 of the Act before the respondent no. 2, but even the aforesaid application of the petitioner has not been decided till date. Hence, a direction may be issued to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner before him on 15.04.2017 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) within a specified period.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 64 of the Act, before the respondent no. 2 along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today.

¶10

In case any such application is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 within the time indicated hereinabove, he shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application by the petitioner.

¶11

Order Date :- 24.10.2019 saqlain

Chhakkan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhakkan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S National Stone Crusher and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Chandra and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S. Kanahiya Lal and Sons Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deshbandhu and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Amina Begum Vs Union of India and 2 Others