Disposed

Rajwati and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2020WRIC/17602/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by land tenure holders seeking direction to decide their Section 18 reference applications regarding land acquisition compensation. Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage directing the Collector to decide applications expeditiously within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector/District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on the petitioners' applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within four months.

Rajwati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17602 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajwati And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Agarwal,Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

¶6

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following main prayers:-

¶7

" I. To issue a writ order in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to decide the application dated 11.02.2014 moved by the petitioners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶8

II. To issue a writ order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to refer the matter to the court or to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority Constituted under section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013."

¶9

The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that petitioners were recorded tenure holders of land situated in Village Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The petitioner no.1 was co-tenure holder of the land of Chak No.401, Gata Nos.39/14, 39/15, 39/16 and Chak No.738, Gata No.178/7. The petitioner no.2 was recorded co-tenure holder of the land of Chak No.1071, Gata No.178/9. The petitioner no.3 was the recorded co-tenure holder of the land of Chak No.1248, Gata Nos.39/14, 39/15, 39/16. The petitioner no.4 was the recorded co-tenure holder of the land of Chak No.637A, Gata No.39/14.

¶10

The aforesaid plots were subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of Industrial Development through Yamuna Express Way Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred as 'authority'). The notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued by the State Government on 30.11.2009 and 1.4.2010 respectively. Possession of the aforesaid plots were taken by the authority on 1.07.2010. The award was declared by the Competent Authority on 31.12.2013. Immediately after the declaration of the award petitioners moved an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Collector for referring the matter for determination of the amount of the compensation to the Court stating therein all the grounds by which the objection to the award was made. The separate applications were duly received in the office of Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) YEIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, who was exercising the power of Collector under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, copies of the all applications dated 11.2.2014 were

¶11

appended collectively as annexure 7 to the writ petition.

¶12

In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is stated that on 5.7.2014 the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar transferred the amount of compensation in the account of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar for disbursement of compensation to the respective tenure holders, whose lands were acquired and award was declared. It is further stated that till date the amount of compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the same is still lying in the account of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is stated that the applications moved by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 dated 11.2.2014 have not yet decided by the respondent no.2. It is further stated in the aforesaid paragraph that Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Authority has not been constituted as provided under Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is further stated that after the new act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, under Section 51 of the aforesaid Act it is provided for speedy disposal of the dispute relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation re-settlement while exercising jurisdiction power and authority conferred on it by an under this Act. It is argued that inspite of the fact that the applications were submitted by the petitioners before the respondent no.2 on 11.2.2014 till date no decision has been taken on the same.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

¶15

Without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2/District Magistrate/Collector, District Gautam Budh Nagar to pass appropriate orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners dated 11.2.2014 expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.2.2020 Pramod Tripathi

Rajwati and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajwati and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kareem Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Harish Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Transport Lucknow and 2 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others