Dismissed

Nilendra Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2021WRIC/4366/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order declining compensation for land acquired for Express-way project. Court held Collector's finding that land was agricultural, not abadi, was unassailable. Lack of notification for Express-way acquisition doomed the petition. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the grounds that the land was agricultural, not abadi, and no notification substantiated acquisition for the Express-way project.

Nilendra Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4366 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Nilendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi

¶4

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

¶5

Sri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner.

¶6

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi appears on behalf of respondent no.3.

¶7

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by respondent no.2, Collector/District Magistrate, District Auraiya. The petitioner also seeks direction to determine the compensation of land in question as per market rate applicable to in abadi land.

¶8

Relevant facts briefly are that, the petitioner purchased a land admeasuring 63 square meter being part of Gata No.251 situated in Village Asha, Tehsil Vidhuna, District Auraiya. The said land was acquired in furtherance to letter No.718/ST-ADMUPD/2018 dated 06.12.2018 for development of Bundelkhand Express-way. It is contended that said sale deed in favour of petitioner was executed on 01.12.2018; however, because of decision taken on 06.12.2018 the name of the petitioner was not mutated in revenue records. As the petitioner was allegedly not compensated for acquisition of land in question which was taken possession of by respondent, the petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court forming subject matter of Writ -C No.38251 of 2019 for a direction for payment of compensation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 25.11.2019 with the observation that in case the petitioner's land has been utilized, his claim for compensation be considered and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law by respondent no.2.

¶9

In furtherance to said direction the Collector/District Magistrate, District Auraiya vide order dated 31.10.2020 decided

¶10

the representation of the petitioner on a finding that the land since is not recorded as abadi of an industrial use and was primarily an agricultural land, it was not to be purchased for Uttar Pradesh Express-way Industrial Development Authority, Lucknow. Collector finds:

¶11

^^xzke vk’kk dh [krkSuh Qlyh o"kZ 1425&1430 ds vuqlkj [kljk la0 251@1-5090gs0 ij izgykn flag iq= j?kquUnu flag fuoklh xzke dk uke orkSj lg[kkrsnkj la0 Hkw0 vafdr gSA rFkk [kljk la0 251 cqansy[k.M ,Dliszlos ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr izHkkfor gSA izgykn flag }kjk dk;kZy; mifucaU/kd fc/kwuk ds ;gka cSuke izys[k la[;k 11985 fnukad 01-12-2018 ds }kjk [kljk la0 251 esa ls 63 oxZ eh0 Hkwfe vkoklh; IykV ds :i esa uhysUnz flag dks fodz; dh x;h gSA ekSds ij bl IykV esa 2 QhV Åaph feV~Vh&xkjk dh fpukbZ ls uhao Hkjh gqbZ gS] bl [kljk ua0 esa dgha Hkh vkoknh ugha cuh gS] cfYd fodzhr IykV NksMdj vU; {ks=Qy ij d`f"k dk;Z rFkk vkaf’kd Hkkx fjDr iMk gSA mDr xkVk esa 143@80¼1½ jkTkLo lafgrk ds vUrxZr vkcknh Hkh ?kksf"kr ugha djk;h x;h gSA

¶12

dk;kZy; eq[;] dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh m0iz0 ,Dlizslost vkS|kSfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ¼;wihMk½ y[kuÅ ds i= la0 4900@;wihMk@ys[kk@17@1107&izf’k0 fnukad 27 fnlEcj] 2018 ds fcUnq la[;k 11 ds vuqlkj dsoy vkoklh; ¼vkoknh½ ;k vkS|kSfxd iz;ksx esa vk jgh Hkwfe dk gh oSukek oxZQqV ;k IykV ds :i esa fd;k tk;sxk] pwafd fodzhr Hkwfe esa u rks ekSds ij vkoknh cuh gS] u gh dksbZ vkS|kSfxd iz;ksx esa yk;h tk jgh gSA m0iz0 ,Dlizslost vkS|kSfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ¼;wihMk½ y[kuÅ }kjk tkjh fn’kk funsZ’kksa ds dze esa iz’uxr Hkwfe dks vkoklh;@vkoknh dh nj ls m0iz0 ,Dlizslost vkS|kSfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ¼;wihMk½ y[kuÅ ds i{k esa dz; fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA^^

¶13

Though it is contended that an erroneous finding is recorded by the concerned Authority that the land is not an abadi land whereas the petitioner has raised construction there-over, however

¶14

¶15

no order of a Competent Authority is commended at by the petitioner that the land in question has been allotted for abadi site under Section 63 read with Section 64 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. In absence thereof, the finding arrived at by the concerned Authority, that the land in question is an agricultural land and is not required, cannot be faulted with as would warrant any interference therewith.

¶16

Further more, as regard to contention that, the said land of the petitioner has been acquired for the development of Bundelkhand Express-way is not substantiated by any Notification or any Order. In view whereof, since no relief can be granted to the petitioner, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.2.2021 N Tiwari

¶18

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

¶19

Nilendra Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilendra Singh v. State of U P and 2 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

M/S M.M. Traders Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Sundar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Mohan Mishra Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others