Disposed

Brahmadutt v. District Judge and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2021A227/1557/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 227 challenging a District Judge's order issuing notices in a Section 30 reference of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court refused intervention pending a merit-based objection regarding maintainability and decided a prima facie dispute of law and facts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty to raise objection on merit and maintainability before the Court below.

Brahmadutt Vs District Judge and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1557 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Brahmadutt Respondent :- District Judge And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel through video conferencing.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking following relief:

¶7

"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record quash and set aside order dated 04.11.2020 passed by District Judge, Meerut, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 03 of 2020 (Avinash Arya Vs. Brahmadutt), registering the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."

¶8

By the impugned order, notices have been issued in the reference to the petitioner herein. It is urged that pursuant to acquisition proceeding under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafater referred to as "Act"), the award was made in 1990. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act in 1992. It is urged that petitioner is sole tenure holder recorded in the revenue record. It is submitted that reference under Section 30 filed by the respondent after 27 years is not maintainable as the third respondent is not a person interested as defined under Section 3(b) of the Act. It is further urged that purpose of filing the reference under Section 30 is to delay the decision in the pending reference under Section 18.

¶9

Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to intervene at this stage, in the first instance, since disputed questions of law and facts are involved. The Court below has merely issued notice. It is open to the petitioner to appear and raise objection on merit, as well as, on the maintainability of the reference.

¶10

In the event such an objection is filed, it is expected that the Court below shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously after hearing all the aggrieved parties.

¶11

With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.7.2021 P. Sri.

Brahmadutt v. District Judge and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmadutt v. District Judge and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shree Shailja Iron Steels Private Limited Vs Shri Ram Prakash, Joint Commissioner (Corporate), Commercial Tax

Rajendra Nath Tripathi and Another Vs Sri Nafees Ahmad, Block Development Officer, Lalganj

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Vs Ram Singh Verma, C.D.O.

Subhash Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Santola Devi Vs Ram Naresh and 14 Others

Shivangi Gupta and Another Vs Principal Judge