Petitioner challenged compensation for land used for Cavrai Canal construction, arguing it was undervalued compared to adjacent sales. Court dismissed petition, holding sale was voluntary and no basis for higher claim.
No costs. Petition fails and is dismissed.
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. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1442 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sumitra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Utsav Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Petitioner vide present petition under Section 226 of the Constitution seeks following relief:-
"I. To issue writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to fix fair and appropriate compensation in respect of Gata no. 2160 area 1.711 Hectare.
II. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay the difference amount after fixing the fair compensation.
III. Issue any other such writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
Evidently, the land of the petitioner forming part of Gata No. 2160 admeasuring 1.771 hectare is used for construction of Cavrai Canal under Arjun Sahayak Pariyojana Project. It is borne out from the pleadings that the petitioner of his freewill had sold the land vide registered sale deed dated 24.7.2018 executed in favour of the petitioner for the consideration of Rs. 149400.00. There being no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was being coerced to carry out the sale, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim for higher amount of compensation merely because the owner of the adjacent Gata fetched more price.
In our considered opinion, the relief claimed by the petitioner being misconceived, same cannot be acceded to.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 A. V. Singh
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who sold land for canal construction by freewill can claim higher compensation based on adjacent land prices.
Sumitra
State of U.P.
Another
Sanjay Yadav
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
