Petitioner sought compensation for structures on government land intended for road widening. Court directed the respondent to decide the pending representation by a speaking order within two months without adjudicating merits.
Direction to respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation by a speaking and reasoned order within two months.
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. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4017 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Neeraj Dube,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri R. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3.
The petitioner submits that he has built a house upon Government land, which is now being sought to be utilised by the respondents for the purpose of road widening. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the demolition of his construction existing on the Government land in the light of the Government circular issued under the signature of Chief General Manager, Coordination of the National Highways Authority of India, copies whereof have been brought on record as annexure 1 to the writ petition.
Paragraph 3 (c) of the aforesaid circular, which is relevant for our purpose is being reproduced hereinbelow :-
" (C) Payment of compensation for private structures like houses & other buildings on Government land :
(i) There are instances where people are granted patta/ownership rights on the land under any law of the State including abadi/assigned land. In such cases compensation would be paid for the structures only on the recommendation of the CALA/State Government. The procedure for valuation of such structures will be followed as mentioned in above paras
(ii) There may be cases where people have been living on the government land for a long period and State Government determine such persons as bonafide & genuine users of the said land. Other civil facilities like water supply, roads, electricity etc. are also provided to them by the government but no ownership document is available with them, in such cases exgratia may be paid for the structures based on the valuation
done by following the procedures mentioned in the above paras; provided the proposal is received through CALA/Government
(d) General Principles :
(i) It should be ensured that no amount is paid for the government land and also for the land where relocation of structures is proposed.
(ii) The valuation of the structures should be done either by the appropriate State Government Agency or vetted by them in case valuation is done by NHAI through the private certified approved agency.
(iii) The proposal should have been received by RO from CALA/concerned Government Agency.
(iv) RO shall be the competent authority for approval of all the proposals as stated above. He should ensure that the above guidelines are followed strictly."
The petitioner claims himself entitled for compensation for his construction on the basis of bonafidee users of the State land for a long period. The records shows that petitioner is claiming compensation under paragraph 3 (c) and (d) of the policy circular dated 10.4.2017. The petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent no.3 dated 22.11.2019, copy whereof has been brought on record annexure 4 to the writ petition.
Since aforesaid representation is still pending before the respondent no.3/Competent Officer/Special Land Acquisition Officer, District Kaushambhi as informed by the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to respondent No.3 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner before him on 22.11.2019 in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 17.2.2020 Pramod Tripathi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of as the representation filed by the petitioner is pending before the competent authority.
Ram Singh
Union Of India
Other 2
Bala Krishna Narayana
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
