Disposed

Mohd. Irshad and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2021WRIC/26501/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this writ petition relying on an order passed in a similar case (Arpit Makkar Vs. State of U.P.). In the similar case, the court directed the authority to consider objections regarding land acquisition before disbursement or acquisition. The present petition was disposed of accordingly to extend that benefit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order passed in a similar case (Arpit Makkar).

Mohd. Irshad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26501 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Irshad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Rana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

¶5

This matter has been placed before this Bench by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶6

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.

¶7

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 wherein the Court has passed the following order :

¶8

"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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."

¶14

The aforesaid order shall enure for the benefit of the petitioner in the instant writ petition as these are all similar matters.

¶15

This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.11.2021 DKS

Mohd. Irshad and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Irshad and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayodhya Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jantareeya Devi Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Shiv Govind Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Mahendra and 3 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Mahender Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others