The Bench disposed of the writ petition by relying on an earlier judgment in a similar fact pattern, directing the respondent to handle objections to land acquisition before disbursing compensation.
Directs second respondent to consider and decide petitioner's objections before acquiring land.
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. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26484 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Sangeeta Makkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Rana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
This matter has been placed before this Bench by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned A.A.G. assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Advocate.
It is submitted that the facts in the instant writ petition are similar to that in Writ C No.20737 of 2021 (Arpit Makkar Vs. State of U.P. and 10 others) decided on 1.10.2021 where in the Court has passed the following order :
"The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to disburse compensation amount to respondents no.5 to 11 in lieu of acquisition of land bearing Khasra No. 426 admeasuring an area 0.1010 hectare situated at village Bijoli, Pargana Sarawa, Tehsil and District Meerut without deciding the objections of the petitioner dated 20.1.2021 and 29.7.2021.
It is clear from the facts stated in the writ petition that the Uttar Pradesh Expressways Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA), the second respondent had published public notice in newspaper 'Danik Jagran' dated 17.1.2021 specifying the plots and name of corresponding tenure holders through which proposed Highway would be constructed. The footnote mentions that in case interest of any person is involved in any land mentioned in the said proposal, he may file objection within 10 days. The petitioner is claiming interest in Khasra No.426 on the basis of a registered agreement to sell in his favour. He is stated to have filed objections on 20.1.2021 and 29.7.2021.
Sri Rahul Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that so far no proceeding under Act No.30 of 2013 has been initiated. He further states that in case any objection has been filed by the petitioner, it will be dealt with in accordance with law.
Counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that the claim is being made only on basis of agreement to sell. The suit for specific performance is still pending. Be that as it may, since the public notice issued by respondent no.2 itself invites objection from any person having any interest, it is desirable that the same be decided before any decision is taken for acquiring land through mutual agreement.
Accordingly, we direct the second respondent to consider and decide the objections of the petitioner dated 20.1.2021 and 29.7.2021 by passing a speaking order within four weeks from the date of communication of true attested copy of the instant order along with photocopy of the objections after giving due opportunity of hearing to respondents no.5 to 11.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."
The aforesaid order shall enure for the benefit of the petitioner in the instant writ petition as these are all similar matters.
This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 9.11.2021 DKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in accordance with the order passed in a similar matter involving identical facts.
Whether the respondent must decide objections to land acquisition before disbursing compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arpit Makkar Vs. State of U.P. and 10 othersRelied on¶7
Writ C No.20737 of 2021 (Arpit Makkar Vs. State of U.P. and 10 others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sangeeta Makkar
State Of U.P.
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Ajai Tyagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
