Dismissed

Jang Bahadur v. Union of India and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2020WRIC/10449/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a stay order preventing disbursement of land acquisition compensation, arguing it erroneously included plots not covered by previous consolidation orders. The court found the petitioner failed to demonstrate the link between disputed plots and prior orders.

What did the court decide?

Stay on disbursement of compensation to be maintained; petition dismissed.

Jang Bahadur Vs Union of India and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10449 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Jang Bahadur Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagannath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Nand Kishore Shukla holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.5.2017 passed by prescribed authority National Highway No. 56/C.R.O. Jaunpur (Annexure No. 12).

¶8

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the award of compensation in pursuant to payment notice dated 28.3.2016 issued in favour to the petitioner in respect to plot No. 413 and 414 situated in village Puramukund, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur acquired for widening the National Highway No. 56 (SultanpurVaranasi) as a four lane."

¶9

The impugned order dated 12.5.2017 is an order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer, i.e. the respondent no.5, whereby, the application of respondent No.6 Rajendra Prasad Singh for stay of disbursal of compensation pursuant to the acquisition of land by the National Highway pertaining to Arazi No. 413, 414, 402, 403, 404, 390, 391 situate at Village Puramukund, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur was allowed.

¶10

By means of the impugned order, the respondent No.5 has stayed disbursal of the compensation in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 15283 of 2016, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo and no third party rights were directed to be created. That order of this Court emanated from the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur in Revision No. 1797, under Section 48(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act that has been enclosed as annexure-5 to the writ petition.

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Arazi Nos. 413 and 414 that have been mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.5.2017 do not find place either in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or in the

¶12

order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition (Writ-B No. 15283 of 2016). It is, therefore, contended that the order impugned is wholly incorrect and is liable to be set aside.

¶13

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the objection of the petitioner to the impugned order are wrong.

¶14

It is admitted that the plots in dispute mentioned in the impugned order against which the petitioners are aggrieved are Arazi Nos. 413 and 414. The description of Khata mentioned in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation does not reflect the corresponding Arazi numbers in dispute in the present writ petition. No document has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate that the Khata Nos. 9,78 and 64 that are mentioned in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation contain Arazi no. 413 and 414 that are also mentioned in the order impugned.

¶15

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed . It is, however, open to the petitioners to agitate their claim before the appropriate authority, which claim shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.11.2020 sfa/

Jang Bahadur v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jang Bahadur v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nisha Vs Virendra Kumar

Ajay Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mintu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Dulari Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shivangi Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dwarika Prasad Nam-Dev Vs Vandana Nam Dev