Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Jain v. State of U P and 6 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021WRIC/27599/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the determination and payment of compensation for land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation with the Additional District Magistrate, who was mandated to refer the matter to a committee for a final decision on compensation within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a fresh representation before Additional District Magistrate; mandamus issued to constituted Committee to examine the controversy and pass appropriate order.

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U P and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27599 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana,Vijay Kumar Ojha

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶7

Petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the respondents to determine and pay the compensation for the acquisition of Petitioner's land bearing plot nos. 4342 (measuring 0.131 hectare) and 4343 (measuring 1.251 hectare) situated at Patti No. 2, Mohal Yusuf Zaman, Tehsil Sadar, District Banda (now known as Mohalla Khutla, City and District Banda) in accordance with Government Order date 12.05.2016 issued by the State Government r/w Section 26 of Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. .

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has already made a detailed representation to the respondent no. 3 on 27.11.2019, which is pending consideration. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Shiekh Saud Uz Zaman Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others (Writ-C No. 31817 of 2019, dt. 27.9.2019) and as such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner.

¶9

The above said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not being disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

In view of the above, on consent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/respondent no. 4 along-with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent No.4 will place

¶11

the same before the Committee constituted in terms of the Government Order dated 12.05.2016. A further mandamus is issued to the Committee to look into the entire controversy raised by the petitioner in his representation and pass appropriate order on the same after examining the issues within a period of one month thereafter. The Committee will submit its report before the respondent no. 3/Collector, Banda who will do the needful as per the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within a further period of one month. The decision taken by the Committee as well as by the Collector, Banda will be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶12

It is made clear that if, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, the same should be paid to him within the further period of two months from the date of order passed by the Collector, Banda/respondent no. 3.

¶13

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶14

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.1.2021 A.K.Srivastava

Rajesh Kumar Jain v. State of U P and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Jain v. State of U P and 6 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

Preeti Pandey and 2 Others Vs Union of India and Another

Sualey Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Barfi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Kritika Goel Vs Abhinav Garg

Shri Bablu Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramdev Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others