The High Court held that a writ petition for restoring acquired land to the petitioners' names is not maintainable as they failed to file a prior application under Section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 before the State Government.
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. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8570 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Kardam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs;
"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/ directing to the respondent no.3 to record the name of the petitioners in the revenue record in place of Agra Development Authority Agra over Khasara No. 570 area 0.2710 Heq. 1/3rd share of the petitioners situated at Village Rohata Tensil and District Agra, on the basis of the provisions of section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/ directing to the respondent no.3 to restore the name of the petitioners in the revenue record in place of Agra Development Authority Agra on the basis of the provisions of section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. "
Heard Sri M.C.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the land of the petitioners, which was acquired in the year 2009/ 2011 for the purpose of construction of an inner ring road in city Agra, has not been utilised till today, may be restored back in their names in place of Agra Development Authority, Agra, (in short the 'authority') under section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has filed its counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the land of the petitioners had been acquired in two phases and possession of the same was taken by the authority on 28.2.2011 and 8.9.2011. It has been further stated that the award of the entire acquired land in pursuance of the notification dated 24.5.2011 was passed on 30.12.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the aforesaid facts. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after acquisition since the land in
question has not been utilised for more than 5 years, the petitioners are entitled to get the same back in their names under section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have moved any application before the State Government under section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 to restore their names in the revenue record, as such, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, it is open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application under section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 before the State Government. In case such application is filed the same shall be decided in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020 samz
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can directly restore the petitioners' names in the revenue record under Section 17 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 without a prior application to the State Gover
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the statutory proviso requiring an application to the State Government first.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Singh Kardam
Other Petitioner
State of U.P.
Agra Development Authority Agra
3 Other Respondents
Respondent No. 4
Shashi Kant Gupta
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
