Allowed

Devdut Deceased and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2020FAPLD/356/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed impleadment applications and condoned a delay of nearly 19 years for a land acquisition compensation appeal involving poor farmers. The appeal was decreed with enhanced compensation at Rs. 297 per square yard but explicitly denied interest for the delay period.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeal decreed with enhanced compensation at Rs. 297 per square yard; interest denied for delayed period.

Devdut Deceased and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 356 of 2014

¶3

Appellant :- Devdut Deceased And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Shailesh Upadhyay,Rakesh Pande,Shailesh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the claimants.

¶6

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application Nos. 309753 of 2017 and 411440 of 2014

¶7

For the reasons mentioned in the applications, impleadment application is allowed.

¶8

Let necessary impleadment be incorporated during the course of the day.

¶9

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 411437 of 2017

¶10

There is a delay of 14 years 75 days. It is submitted that appellants are poor farmers and they have filed this appeal seeking enhancement when they came to know of similar orders passed by the Court in case of similarly situated other persons.

¶11

This Court has taken a view that poor farmers should not be deprived of due compensation for the land which has been taken away by the instrumentalities of the State, but at the same time they should not be allowed to take undue advantage of accrued interest for the period of delay by which appeal has been preferred.

¶12

Sri Shivam Yadav vehemently submits that delay should not be condoned and he may granted one more opportunity. His request though appears to be just, but looking to the fact that no counter affidavit has been filed by the authorities since 2014 and similar view has already be taken by this Court relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of K. Subbarayudu and Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) as reported in 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 428 as well as Division Bench of this Court, therefore, his request is turned down.

¶13

In view of this position taken by the Court, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

This defective appeal is disposed off in terms of the order passed in First Appeal No. 770 of 2014 (Nanua Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others ) as decided on 13.07.2016 so also another appeal bearing First Appeal No. 428 of 2016 ( Mamchandra and others vs. State and others) as decided on 19.11.2016 whereby the Division Bench of this Court giving reference to the order passed in First Appeal No. 1100 of 2004 (Mangu and others vs. State of U.P. and others) connected with about 37 more appeals decided on 03.12.2014 and so also another appeal bearing First Appeal No. 564 of 1997 ( Khazan and others vs. State of U.P.) as decided on 11.10.2012 by a Division bench of this Court has held that appellants are entitled for compensation @ Rs. 297 per square yard. They shall also be entitled to solecism interest etc. on such amount which will be payable within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, it is clarified that interest for the period of delay i.e., 14 years 75 days will not be payable by the authorities to the appellants as appellants are responsible for this delay.

¶15

A decree be drawn subject to payment of court fees on the enhanced amount.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Vikram/-

Devdut Deceased and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devdut Deceased and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Dropa Devi and 2 Others Vs Om Prakash Sharma and 6 Others

Smt. Neelu Devi Vs Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors.

Smt. Sheetal and 3 Others Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Mathura and 2 Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional Mananger Vs Dilip Kumar @ Munna and Another

Malkha and 3 Others Vs Indrajeet and 18 Others

Rohit Jaiswal Vs Pooja Jaiswal