Dismissed

Ram Sanehi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2020WRIC/5930/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding forceful acquisition of land for the Bundelkhand Expressway without compensation, the Court found the petition premature and disposed of it with liberty to file a representation before the District Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file a representation before District Magistrate within three weeks for adjudication of claim.

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

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5930 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Sanehi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the description of respondent No.2.

¶6

Heard Sri Satendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chatervedi, Additional Advocate General/Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

¶8

"(A) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of the forcefully acquired land of remaining area 0.3610 hectare of plot no.436/1 for construction of Bundelkhand Expressway or vacate the aforesaid land of the petitioners which already forcefully occupies by the respondents.

¶9

(B) Issue suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

¶11

The petitioners' claim that they are recorded owners of plot No.436/1 situate in village Rampur Baish, Pargana and Tehsil Bidhuna, District Auraiya having a total area 0.9260 hectare. Respondent No.2 purchased an area of 0.5650 hectare of the petitioners' plot No.436/1 from him by a registered sale deed dated 30.03.2019, which was utilized by the respondents for the

¶12

construction of Bundekhand Expressway.

¶13

The petitioners' grievance appears to be that apart from the area 0.5650 hectare of their plot, the respondents have illegally utilized remaining area of the aforesaid plot measuring 0.3610 hectare also for the same purpose but without either acquiring the same or paying any compensation to the petitioners. Even the representation filed on 04.02.2020 namely Tehsil Diwas by the petitioners in this regard has not been decided till date.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that suitable direction be issued to the respondents to compensate the petitioners for that area of their plot which was utilized by them without acquiring or paying any compensation.

¶15

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the authority competent to adjudicate upon the petitioners' claim is respondent No.3/District Magistrate and the petitioners without approaching the respondent No.3 for redressal of their grievance, have straight away rushed to this court by filing this writ petition which at this stage is premature and liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties present, perused the material brought on record and considered the fact as claimed by the petitioners that a huge area of their plot has been utilized by the respondents for the construction of Bundekhand Expressway without paying any compensation to them without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh comprehensive representation before respondent no.3 raising their grievance, alongwith certified copy of this order, within a period three weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed before respondent no.3 within the time indicated

¶17

hereinabove, he shall consider and decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioners before him.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.2.2020 saqlain

Ram Sanehi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sanehi and Another 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

M/S Raghubanshi Stone Product Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Meera Devi and 119 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Deepak Shukla Vs State of U. P. through Its Principal Secretary and 3 Others

M/S Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praveen and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Balendu Shekhar Dwivedi Vs State of U P and 4 Others