Petitioner sought 64.70% enhanced compensation for land acquired in 1988 citing a 2011 Full Bench decision. The Court found no merit as the case did not cover the 1988 notification and no ground existed for such a belated claim. The writ petition was dismissed.
Writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42059 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bhopal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Gopesh Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
The petitioner is seeking 64.70% enhanced compensation in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB).
It is to be noted that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is of 02.09.1988. Award must have also been made in the said proceedings, although the petitioner does not know the date of the award.
Shri Gopesh Dwivedi, submits that the said notification is not covered by the Gajraj case and the petitioner is making a claim at belated stage which is impermissible in law.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
From the notification of 02.09.1988, no ground has been made out as to why the petitioner wants enhanced compensation at the rate of 64.70% in 2019.
No case is made out for interference of this Court.
Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019/sweta
( Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can claim enhanced compensation at 64.70% based on a Full Bench decision when the land acquisition notification in 1988 is not covered by the case and no ground is made out for su
Whether there is any case for interference by this Court given the absence of merit in the petitioner's claim for enhancement.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable for seeking delayed compensation enhancement without justifying the year 2019 rate under 1988 proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶6
2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhopal
State Of U.P.
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Abhinava Upadhya
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
