In this writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation, the court did not express an opinion on merits. Instead, it disposed of the petition by granting liberty to petitioners to file a fresh representation before the competent authority for benefits under a specific Government Order.
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. - 6379 of 2020
Petitioner :- Dalchand And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-
"I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide 64.70 % additional compensation and al lot 7 % developed land to the petitioner in term of Govt. order and policy framed by respondent no. 4.
II) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
III) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioners."
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is the owner of plot no. 897 area 0.8890 hectare and petitioner no. 2 is the owner of plot no. 831 area 7464 hectare situated situated in Madalpur, Jewar Bangar, Pargana and Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar hereinafter referred to as the plots in dispute, which were acquired by the respondent no. 4 for the purpose of Planned Industrial Development through Yamuna Expressway .
It is further contended that the compensation in respect of plots
in question was determined by the respondent no. 2 on the basis of the value of the land determined by the respondent no. 3 at the rate of 2500/- per square metre.
It is next contended that the State Government issued a Government Order dated 29.08.2014, copy whereof is brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, which conferred certain benefits on the land owners whose land was acquired by the Government but compensation was not given and hence, a direction be issued to the respondent to provide the benefits to which they are entitled under the aforesaid Government Order dated 29.08.2014.
Shri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has submitted that the petitioners has approached this Court for issuing the writ of mandamus without first approaching the concerned authority for redressal of their claim which in the present writ petition is respondent no. 4 and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that count.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, without expressing any opinion on merits, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4, who is the authority competent to address the petitioners' grievance claiming the benefit to which they are entitled under Government Order dated 29.08.2014 along with certified copy of this order. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 4 within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no. 4, strictly 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 filing of such representation by the petitioners before him.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020 SA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioners should be directed to first approach the competent authority for redressal of their claim for compensation benefits under the Government Order dated 29.08.2014.
Dalchand
Unknown Second Petitioner
State Of U.P.
Unknown Respondent 2
Unknown Respondent 3
Respondent No. 4
Bala Krishna Narayana
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
