Dismissed

Rama Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2021WRIC/16733/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the demolition of her constructed plot used for a road project. The Court held that a sale deed executed post-acquisition notifications and possession is void, barring any rights to land, alternate plots, or compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition is dismissed as the sale deed is void and no legal rights can be established.

Rama Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16733 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rama Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Babu,Aaditya Dhar Dweevedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh,Saurabh Sinha

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anil Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Saurabh Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent nos. 2 and 3. The learned Standing Counsel has accepted advance notice of the writ petition on behalf of respondent no. 1.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the New Okhla Development Authority (respondent no. 2) to allot an alternate plot to the petitioner in lieu of the plot taken for construction of the Faridabad-Noida-Ghaziabad (F.N.G.) road or to pay the compensation of the plot at the present rate of land together with the expenses for construction of a house.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she purchased a plot of land measuring 100 square yards in village Gadhi Chaukhandi, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar by a registered sale deed dated 4.11.2011 for a consideration of Rs.8,50,000/-. Pursuant to the sale deed, the petitioner is stated to have raised certain constructions over the land purchased with a view to reside therein. However, the respondent Authority on 7.12.2013 demolished the constructions raised by the petitioner and the plot was utilized for construction for the FNG Road. The petitioner vehemently contends that the plot purchased by the petitioner was not acquired nor the possession of the same was taken by the Authority and no objection was raised when the petitioner carried out the construction over the plot. The petitioner in such circumstances is entitled to an alternate plot or compensation in lieu thereof.

¶8

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶9

We find that the land of the petitioner admittedly formed part of Plot No. 14 which plot along with other plots was acquired by the respondent no. 2 under Notification U/s 4 (1) read with

¶10

Section 17 and under Section 6(1) read with Section 17 dated 11.9.2006 and 27.10.2006, respectively and possession was also taken on 2.12.2006. We also find that the sale deed dated 4.11.2011 under which the petitioner claims her right to the land has been executed subsequent to the Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The sale deed dated 4.11.2011 is void and no rights can accrue to the petitioners over the land on the strength of the sale deed in view of the settled legal position about the validity of any such sale post issuance of Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by a long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Reference may be made in this regard to the decisions reported in 2015 (17) SCC 1 (M. Venkatish versus Bangalore Development Authority); 1996 (10) SCC 721 (Ajay Krishan Singhal versus Union of India); 1995 (5) SCC 335 (Mahavir versus Rural Institute); 1995 (2) SCC 528 (Gian Chand versus Gopala); 2008 (9) SCC 177 (Meera Sahni versus Lt. Governor of Delhi); 2009 (10) SCC 689 (Tika Ram versus State of U.P.).

¶11

We also find that the petitioner has not specifically pleaded that her transferer was not paid compensation in lieu of the land acquired. The claim for compensation is also not sustainable.

¶12

In view of the above legal position, no relief as claimed can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.11.2021 Ravi Prakash

Rama Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Harish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Mangalmay Foundation Trust Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Supertech Limited Vs Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority and 3 Others

M/S Supertech Township Project Limited Vs Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority and 3 Others

Jaipal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another