The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation and market-rate valuation for land allegedly acquired for the Bundelkhand Express-way. The collectors found the land to be agricultural due to lack of mutation and specific notifications. The petition failed for lack of evidence regarding acquisition notifications.
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. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4376 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Sri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner.
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi appears on behalf of respondent no.3.
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.
Relevant facts briefly are that, the petitioner purchased a land admeasuring 84 square meter being part of Gata No.381 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 03.12.2018; 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.38248 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.
In furtherance to said direction the Collector/District Magistrate, District Auraiya vide order dated 31.10.2020 decided 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:
^^xzke vk’kk dh [krkSuh Qlyh o"kZ 1425&1430 ds vuqlkj [kljk la0 381@1-1900 gs0 ij ijljke iq= /khjt flag fuoklh xzke dk uke orkSj lg[kkrsnkj la0 Hkw0 vafdr gSA rFkk [kljk la0 381 cqansy[k.M ,Dliszl os ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr izHkkfor gSA izgykn flag }kjk dk;kZy; mifucaU/kd fc/kwuk ds ;gka cSuke izys[k la[;k 12035 fnukad 03-12-2018 ds }kjk [kljk la0 381 esa ls 84 oxZ eh0 Hkwfe vkoklh; IykV ds :i esa latho dqekj dks fodz; dh x;h gSA ekSds ij bl IykV esa 5 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
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^^
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 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
2
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.
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.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 N Tiwari
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Collector's finding that the land is agricultural and not 'abadi' land suitable for industrial acquisition.
Whether there is a statutory notification or order substantiating the acquisition of the petitioner's land for the Bundelkhand Express-way development.
Whether the petitioner has claimed or substantiated that the land was allotted for 'abadi' site under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Sanjeev Kumar
State Of U P
Two Others
Jayant Banerji
Sanjay Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
