Dismissed

Ramjatan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021WRIC/17410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged forced land surrender for a Solid Waste Management Plant, claiming coercion. The Court dismissed the petition because the execution of sale deeds was disclosed in a subsequent affidavit, and the writ petition was filed based on suppressed material facts, barring equitable relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Ramjatan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17410 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramjatan And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh,Vibhu Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Subhanshu Shekhar, learned counsel for the State and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶6

Petitioners, who are 83 in number, have filed the present writ petition with the contention that they are duly recorded tenure holder of the land in question and without any acquisition or consent on their part, the State authorities are compelling them to surrender their land in favour of the State. According to petitioners, the acquisition of land is for Solid Waste Management Plant and one of the prayer in the writ petition also is to direct the State authority to shift the location of the Plant to some other place. This Court took cognizance of petitioners' contention and passed following orders on 14.9.2021:-

¶7

"The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioners to surrender their land in favour of the State Government for the purpose of constructions of Solid Waste Management Plant. The petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to shift the Solid Waste Management Plant to some other place.

¶8

The respondents are proposing to construct of a Solid Waste Management Plant in Village Suthani, Tehsil Sajhanwa, District Gorakhpur and according to the project report, the land of the petitioners would also be covered under the project. The total area to be acquired is 8.543 hectares, belonging to 108 farmers, out of which 83 are before this Court. It is alleged that the respondents have not issued any notification so far for acquisition of the petitioner's land but respondent Nos.3 to 8 along with police force are exerting pressure on the petitioners to give consent for surrender of their land in favour of the Government. The petitioners gave an application on 03.11.2020 to the District Magistrate clearly stating that they are not interested in surrendering their land, as it is a good quality fertile land. Still the respondents are coercing and compelling the petitioners to enter into agreement for sale and thereby agree to surrender their land for construction of Solid Waste Management Plant.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel is in receipt of his instructions from District

¶10

Magistrate, Gorakhpur wherein it is admitted that plot Nos.104, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 182, 183, 184, 185, 190, 191, 194, 188, 187, 200, 201, 222 are covered under the proposed project whereas plot Nos.203, 234 and 238 are not included. It is also stated that the landholders of plot Nos.104, 150, 151, 157, 182, 183, 186, 188, 187, 192, 194, 196, 197, 198, 222 have already executed sale deeds in favour of Nagar Nigam and sale deeds in respect of part of plot Nos.153, 152, 154, 155, 156, 159, 184, 185 had also been obtained. In respect of remaining plots, effort for obtaining sale deeds is under way. It is, thus, admitted that the respondents are intending to obtain sale deed of the remaining plots covered under the project, which also include plots of the petitioners.

¶11

There is no provision under any law to compel a tenure holder to sell his land in favour of Government or its instrumentalities. The case set up by the petitioners in the writ petition that they are being compelled to sell their land, thus, appears to be correct.

¶12

Let respondent No.2 file his personal affidavit explaining how the petitioners are being compelled to sell their land to Nagar Nigam although they are not agreeable to the same.

¶13

Put up as fresh on 23rd September, 2021.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel shall communicate the instant order to respondent No.2 for due compliance."

¶15

Pursuant to above orders, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur has filed his personal affidavit in which it is stated that most of the petitioners have voluntarily transferred their land by executing sale deed and sale consideration has also been received by them, mostly in their bank accounts. It is stated that petitioners have suppressed correct facts and the writ petition has been filed entirely based upon suppression and concealment of material facts. A reply has been received to the compliance affidavit in which the factum of execution of sale deed by most of the petitioners is admitted and what is sought to be urged now by the petitioners is that the execution of sale was not out of their own volition and that they are compelled to execute the sale deed.

¶16

We are at a loss to understand that in case petitioners were compelled to execute the sale deed what prevented them from placing such fact at the very outset in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the fact about execution of sale was not brought to his notice.

¶17

We are of the view that extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to protect the interest of those, who approached the Court on the strength of suppression and concealment of material facts. The facts suppressed initially and was not originally pleaded in the writ petition, have been disclosed by the respondents, whereafter a

¶18

new case is sought to be developed on behalf of the petitioners and would place the petitioners in the category of those, who have not approached the Court with clean hands. Such persons, therefore, are not entitled to any relief in exercise of equity jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the contention that the sale deed was got executed on account of coercion, is a question of fact, which has to be pleaded and proved. Pleadings in writ petition are wholly deficient on that count. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The amount shall be recovered from petitioners, as arrears of land revenue, unless the same is deposited by them within four weeks. The amount, so deposited, shall be transferred to Legal Services Authority at Gorakhpur and would be utilised for the welfare of needy by the authority concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 D. Tamang

¶20

Digitally signed by VIKRAM D Digitally signed by ASHWANI CHAUHAN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2021.12.09 17:50:36 IST Date: 2021.12.09 17:51:31 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Ramjatan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjatan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Singh Vrat Yadav Vs Union of India and Another

Raghu Mishra Vs the Union of India and Another

Amit Kumar Singh and Another Vs Union of India and Another

Mukesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sudha Gupta Vs Union of India and Another

Vijay Bahadur @ Non Bhaiya and Another Vs the State of U.P. and Others