Disposed

Sanjay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020WRIC/5773/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking compensation release. Noting the compensation was deposited in 2015, the court declined to decide on merits, allowing the petitioner to file a representation before the withholding authority for a reasoned order within 2-3 months after opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a comprehensive representation before Respondent no.2 within two weeks; authority directed to decide on a speaking order after hearing within three months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5773 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-

¶7

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondent authority to release the compensation in favour of the petitioner.

¶8

B. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

¶9

C. Award the cost to the petitioners."

¶10

Having gone through the averments made in the writ petition and the documents appended thereto, we find that the petitioner is the recorded owner of gata nos.152 and 153 situate in village Gutila, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed plot"). The petitioner further claims that the aforesaid plots of the petitioner were acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and an award was made on 23.12.2013 (Annexure-1) by which total sum of Rs.8,76,189/was awarded as compensation, but till date not a single penny has been released in favour of the petitioner although the awarded amount of compensation has been deposited by respondent no.3 before respondent no.4 as is evident from the document appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent no.2 directing him to release the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner, in favour of him, within a specified period.

¶11

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that since it is apparent from the perusal of the document appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, that the amount of compensation has been deposited by respondent no.3 as far back in the year 2015, and in the normal course, the awarded

¶12

amount of compensation could have been released in favour of the petitioner by now, and since respondent no.2 is withholding the release of compensation, it appears that there may be some dispute with regard to the entitlement to receiving the awarded amount of compensation.

¶13

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation raising all his grievances which have been taken by him in this writ petition alongwith certified copy of this order before respondent no.2.

¶14

In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order, after affording opportunity of hearing to any other person who may have any interest in the dispute, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner before him.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.2.2020

¶16

Shalini

Sanjay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

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

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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

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

Ram Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Kalamuddin Badruddin Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others