Writ filed challenging an acquisition authority order denying compensation. The court held findings were supported by material and dismissed the petition refusing relief.
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.
1
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1418 of 2021 Petitioner :- Mohan Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Besides quashment of order dated 26.11.2020, the petitioner also seeks direction to the respondent to pay compensation and interest thereon @ 12% per annum.
Contenting inter-alia that being an owner of the property bearing Gata No.180 admeasuring 2.599 hectare having purchased the same from one Satyadeo, vide registered sale deed dated 15.1.1996, part whereof, admeasuring 1.6932 hectare was acquired by defendant no.2 for construction of six lane road on National Highway No.2, and as the compensation in lieu thereof was not paid to the petitioner despite the repeated representation dated 19.12.2017, 23.11.2017 and 20.2.2020, petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.-12078 of 2020, during pendency whereof the respondent passed the impugned order whereby on the findings that the land of the petitioner being not acquired, she is held not entitled for the compensation.
The petitioner is aggrieved thereof. It is urged that Gata No.180 being large plots in number of Khata and there being no demarcation of Khata holders; however on the representation of the petitioner share certificate was submitted by the Circle Lekhpal on 22.5.2018 to Tehsildar, Tundla stating therein that an area admeasuring 0.072 hectare was acquired of the holding of the petitioner. The said aspect, it is urged has not been considered by the Authority concerned who erred in rejecting the
2
claim.
Considered the submission and perused material documents on record. Evident it is from the impugned order that the Authority meticulously considered the claim of the petitioner and found;
**;kfpuh }kjk ek0 mPPk U;k;ky; iz;kxjkt esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 12078@2020 Jherh eksguh nsoh cuke m0iz0 ljdkj vkfn esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2020 ds vuqikyu gsrq dk;Zokgh djus gsrq bl dk;kZy; } kjk i= la[;k 5267@v0ft0Hkw0v0@vkxjk @fnukad 23-11-2020 mi ftykf/kdkjh] Vw.Myk dks bl vk'k; ls Hkstk x;k fd xzke ftjksyh dyk rglhy Vw.Myk ds xkVk la[;k 180 ls jk"Vªh; jktekxZ gsrq vftZr Hkwfe esa izkfFkZ;k Jherh eksgu nsoh dksbZ va'k@fgLlk fu/kkZfjr dj izkIr ugha djk;k x;k gSA blfy, mDr xkVs ls lanfHkZr ifj;kstuk gsrq vftZr Hkwfe dk LFkyh; ijh{k.k djkdj vftZr Hkwfe esa izkfFkZ;k dh vtZu ls izHkkfor Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa okafNr vk[;k yksVrh Mkd ls miyC/k djk;s tkus dk d"V djsaA
bl dk;kZy; ds i= fnukad 23-11-2020 ds dze esa mi ftykf/kdkjh] Vw.Myk }kjk vius i= la[;k 718@j0d0 fn0 25-11-2020 ds ek/;e ls fnukad 2611-2020 dks dk;kZy; esa izkIr djk;h xbZ gSA mDr vk[;k esa ;g of.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd rglhy }kjk iwoZ eas 26-6-2016 ,oa 31-5-2016 dks xkVk la[;k 180 ls vftZr Hkwfe ds ljs[k.k ls izHkkfor d"kdksa dks ekSds dh fLFkfr rFkk xtV ds vuqlkj izfrdj Hkqxrku gsrq vk[;k izsf"kr dh x;h FkhA mijksDr nksuks vk[;kvksa esa vkosfndk Jherh eksgu nsoh iRuh lhrkjke fu0 vyhuxj dStjk] jktk dk rky rglhy fQjkstkckn dk uke jk"Vªh; jktekXkZ esa vtZu ls izHkkfor d"kdks esa 'kkfey a ugha gSaA blds vfrfjDr ;g of.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd fnukad 23-11-2020 dks xzke tjkSyhdyka ds xkVk la[;k 180 fe- dk jk"Vªh; jktekxZ ds izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk LFkyh; fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA LFkyh; fujh{k.k esa ik;k x;k fd fnukad 31-5-2016 ds ckn jk"Vªh; jktekxZ dh lajs[k.k fLFkfr esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugh gqvk gSA
lanfHkZr izdj.k esa mi ftykf/kdkjh] Vw.Myk }kjk izkIr djk;h xbZ mijksDr va'k fu/kkZj.k vk[;kvksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k 180 ls lanfHkZr ifj;kstuk gsrq vftZr Hkwfe esa ekSds ds vuqlkj izkfFkZ;ksa ds LokfeR; dh dksbZ Hkwfe vtZu ls izHkkfor ugha gSA blfy, ;kfpuh Jherh eksgu nsoh iRuh lhrkjke dks izfrdj Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gSA
vr% ek0 mPp U;k;ky; iz;kxjkt }kjk lanfHkZr fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2020 ds vuqikyu esa Jherh eksgunsoh iRuh lhrkjke fu0 vyhuxj dStjk] jktk dk rky rglhy fQjkstkckn }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 19-12-2017] 23-10-2017 ,oa 20-2-2020 mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSA**
No cogent material document is brought on the record to establish any perversity in the findings rendered by the Authority.
In view whereof we declines indulgence.
3
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
No costs.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Neeraj
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J).
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquisition authority erred in holding that no compensation share was due to the petitioner despite her representation.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquisition authority's findings regarding the petitioner's land share.
Mohan Devi
State Of U.P.
SH peer lhrkjk
Defendant No. 2
Unnamed Official
Sanjay Yadav
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
