Disposed

Sabhajeet Sharma v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020WRIC/41864/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought compensation for land used to erect a transmission line tower, alleging crop damage compensation was paid but land acquisition compensation was not determined. The court directed the District Magistrate to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Magistrate to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders within four months.

Sabhajeet Sharma Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41864 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sabhajeet Sharma Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Krishna,Pankaj Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents no.1 and 4, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Sri Amit Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.

¶6

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of plot no.462 in Village Kurauli, Tehsil Aurai, District Sant Ravi Das NagarBhadohi.

¶7

It is submitted that the respondent no.3 for laying down the transmission line has utilized the land of the petitioner for erecting the transmission line tower. It is further submitted that according to the Government Order dated 6th September, 2018, filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the compensation is to be paid to the land holders for the utilization of land apart from the compensation paid for the damages to the crop. It is also submitted that the damages to the crop have been paid to the petitioner but the land that has been utilized for erecting the tower that compensation has not been determined nor paid. It is also submitted that the District Magistrate is the competent authority to determine the compensation and the respondent no.3, upon such determination, will pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶8

The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Ngar/Bhadohi-respondent no.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as far as possible, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order along with a fresh representation is presented before the authority concerned.

¶9

Order Date :- 6.1.2020 SKM

¶10

(Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)

Sabhajeet Sharma v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabhajeet Sharma v. State of U P and 3 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

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S. Tasty Dairy Specialities Limited Vs National Highway Authority of India and 3 Others

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others