Dismissed

Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2021WRIC/3598/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a rejection of representation seeking removal of illegal possession of land acquired for housing colony. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that land was duly mutated in respondent's name via DM order of 22.9.1999 and the impugned order was compliant with law and court directions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to vacate the land illegally possessed as per District Magistrate's order of 22.9.1999.

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3598 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Saran

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶6

Heard Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 (U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad). Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶7

Connected Writ-C No. 21259 of 2012 is delinked.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed for quashing an order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the respondent no. 6, Executive Engineer by which her representation was rejected holding that the mutation with regard to the land in dispute has been affected in the revenue records in favour of the Awas & Vikas Parishad and as a result of the order of the District Magistrate dated 28.9.1999, since the land belongs to the U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad, the illegal possession and construction is liable to be removed. A direction has also been given to the petitioner to remove her possession and encroachment over the land in question.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 2686 and 2687 situated at Mauza Naraish, Tehsil Etmadpur, District Agra and the land was acquired for purpose of the U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad for developing housing colonies. It is stated that though the notifications under the U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam under Section 28 and 30 were issued on 30.1.1970 and 28.8.1994 respectively but thereafter the possession was never taken and the petitioner is in physical possession of the same. No colonies were developed by the respondent- Parishad and no compensation has been paid to her. It is stated by means of an order dated 31.8.1998, the District Magistrate released the land of the petitioner from acquisition proceedings and thereafter her name was duly mutated in the revenue records. It is stated that thereafter the order dated 22.9.1999 was passed by the District Magistrate, Agra reviewing the earlier order dated

¶10

31.8.1998 without any notice to the petitioner and it was directed that the land in question be mutated in the name of the U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate by means of a Civil Suit bearing Original Suit No. 760 of 1999 which was dismissed on 9.12.2014 on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. The order passed in the suit was challenged before this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing Matters Under Article 227 No. 1811 of 2015 which was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. Thereafter, it is contended, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 2, the Principle Secretary, Department of Housing, Government of Uttar Pradesh which is stated to be pending. During pendency of the appeal a notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.2.2020 for evicting her from the land bearing Khasra No. 2686 and 2687 which was challenged before this Court in Writ-C No. 9153 of 2020 which was disposed of by this Court on 22.6.2020 directing the petitioner to approach the U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad and the Executive Engineer giving reply to the notice and, it was directed that in case such a representation is filed by the petitioner the same would be considered by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is contended that thereafter the petitioner filed a detailed representation which was illegally and arbitrarily rejected by means of the impugned order dated 29.10.2020. It has also been stated that earlier another Suit bearing Original Suit No. 360 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner against the U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad which was decreed in her favour. An Execution Case No. 15 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner which is still pending. It is stated that in that execution case an order dated 27.3.2012 was passed directing recovery of damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and attaching the immovable property of the judgement debtor. That order was challenged by the U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad by means of a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 21259 of 2012 which is pending before this Court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the petition and as stated that the suit of 1997 that was decreed in favour of the petitioner pertained to Khasra No. 2690 having an area of 1 Bigha 10 Biswa and the order passed in execution of the decree in that suit is the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition filed by the respondent- Parishad in 2012. It is contended that the order impugned in this petition has been passed with respect to plots of land bearing Khasra No. 2686 and 2687 which have been duly acquired by the respondentParishad and the name of the Parishad is duly mutated in the

¶12

revenue records.

¶13

On consideration of the record, it appears that plots of land bearing Khasra No. 2686 of 2687 were admittedly notified for acquisition along with other plots of land. An order was passed by the District Magistrate on 31.8.1998 observing that since the plots bearing Khasra Nos. 2686 and 2687 have not been taken possession of by the acquiring body for the required purpose and for want of deposit of entire amount of compensation, the lands in question be recorded in the names of the land owners (petitioner). However, by another order dated 22.9.1999 passed by the District Magistrate it was observed that with regard to Khasra No. 2686 and 2687 and other plots of land, an award dated 7.9.1982 was declared and an amount in excess of the awarded amount was deposited by the acquiring body. The order records that after service of notice objections were filed on behalf of the erstwhile land owners and thereafter the previous order of the District Magistrate dated 31.8.1998 was set aside and it was directed that the land in question be recorded in the name of the respondent- Parishad in the revenue records. Challenge to the aforesaid order dated 22.9.1999 of the District Magistrate in the Original Suit was dismissed which order thereafter has allegedly been challenged in an appeal filed before the respondent no. 2. That appeal is said to be pending. It has not been disclosed by the petitioner that under which provision of law has the appeal has been preferred by the Authority concerned and whether the same is maintainable.

¶14

Be that as it may, in view of the order of the District Magistrate dated 22.9.1999, which has not been quashed or modified till date, the petitioner has no right to contend that she is not liable to be evicted from the lands in question being Khasra Nos. 2686 and 2687. The aforesaid Suit No. 360 of 1997 pertained to an altogether different plot of land bearing Khasra No. 2690 and the decree therein is of no help to the petitioner in the present case. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that it has been passed after due deliberation and consideration of the record and the same is in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in the previous writ petition being Writ-C No. 9153 of 2020. The operative part of the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 reads as follows:

¶15

"अततः उपररोक्त वरररत पररससस्थिरतययों ससे सपष्ट हहै रकि शश्रीमतश्री पपुष्पपा दसेवश्री दपारपा महपामरहम रपाज्यपपाल महरोदय किरो पसेरषित पत्यपावसेदन रदनपानांकि 03.08.2015 व फरवरश्री, 2016 पपूररततः असत्य व तथ्ययों छपुपपातसे हहयसे पसेरषित रकियपा गयपा हहै। जरो सवश्रीकिपार यरोग्य नहश्री स्थिपा , अततः रपाज्यपपाल महरोदय दपारपा किरोई आदसेश पपाररत नहहीं रकियपा गयपा हहै। पपूवर जजलपाजधिकिपारश्री महरोदय, आगरपा दपारपा खसरपा सनां० 2686/1-11-0, 2687/0-10-0 किपुल रकिवपा 2-1-0 किसे

¶16

सम्बन्धि मम पपाररत आदसेश 368(4) / आठ- रव.भपू.अ.आ. (आ.रव.प.) आगरपा रदनपानांकि 28.09.1999 पपूररततः न्यपायरोरचित हहै। वपाद सनां० 760/1999 शश्रीमतश्री पपुष्पपा दसेवश्री बनपाम जजलपाजधिकिपारश्री, आगरपा व आवपास रवकिपास पररषिद मम भश्री अपर जजलपा जज / रवशसेषि न्यपायपाधिश्रीश इ.सश्री. एक्ट आगरपा नसे रवसत त ृ सपुनवपाई उपरपान्त अपनसे रनररय रदनपानांकि 09.12.2014 मम जजलपाजधिकिपारश्री , आगरपा किसे आदसेश सनां० 368(4)/ आठ- रव.भपू.अ.आ. (आ.रव.प.) आगरपा रदनपानांकि 28.09.1999 किरो सहश्री ठहरपायपा गयपा हहै। इसकिसे अरतररक्त मपा० उच्चि न्यपायपालय दपारपा पपाररत आदसेश रदनपानांकि 20.06.2020 किसे समपादर मम खसरपा सनांख्यपा 2686 व 2687 किकी भपूरम पर रकियसे गयसे अरतक्रमर/अवहैधि किब्जपा किरो पररषिद रहत मम हटपायपा जपानपा रनतपान्त आवश्यकि हरोगपा। पपाजस्थिरनश्री दपारपा पसेरषित पत्यपावसेदन रदनपानांकि 13.07.2020 रनरसत रकियसे जपानसे यरोग्य हहै। तदपानपुसपार पत्यपावसेदन रदनपानांकि 13.07.2020 रनरसत रकियपा जपातपा हहै।

¶17

अततः वपारदनश्री किरो रनगरत नरोरटस सनां०- 176 रदनपानांकि 11.02.2020 रवजधि सनांगत हहै। सपास्थि हश्री वपारदनश्री किरो रनद र शत रकियपा जपातपा हहै रकि उक्त सम्पजत्ति ससे अपनपा अवहैधि किब्जपा /अरतक्रमर एकि सपपाह किसे अन्दर सस्थिल ससे हटपा लसे , अऩ्यस्थिपा अवहैधि किब्जपा /अरतक्रमर हटपानसे किकी किपायरवपाहश्री मम आऩसे वपालसे व्यय किकी भपू-रपाजसव वसपूलश्री किकी भपानांरत सपुरनसश्चित किकी जपायसेगश्री।"

¶18

Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.2.2021 A. V. Singh

¶20

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)

Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Munni Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sudami Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Komal Keshwani Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Narsingh Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sheikh Mohd. Haseeb and 6 Others Vs National Highway Authority of India and 4 Others