Allowed

C/M Chhangamal Anglo Sanskrit Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021WRIC/452/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the quantum of land acquisition compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was challenged for ignoring 2013 Act provisions. The Court held that the petitioner's remedy lies under Section 64 of the 2013 Act rather than through this writ, permitting withdrawal with liberty to seek reference.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to seek reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

C/M Chhangamal Anglo Sanskrit Inter College and Another… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 452 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Chhangamal Anglo Sanskrit Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Besides challenging the award dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly the petitioner vide this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also seeks direction to the respondents to award compensation of Plot No.1879 admeasuring 0.4100 Hectare (181.82 sq. mtr.) situated in Kasba Sarai ZA II of Pargana Faridpur, District Bareilly in accordance with the stipulation in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (referred to Act, 2013).

¶6

The relevant facts briefly are that a Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 13.08.2009 for acquiring 0.41 hectares of Plot No.1879 situated in Kasba Sarai ZA II, Pargana Faridpur, District Bareilly. The Notification is published in the Gazette extraordinary on 01.09.2009.

¶7

Aggrieved, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10252 of 2011 seeking quashment of said notification. Initially an interim stay was granted on 25.02.2011. However, later the writ petition was dismissed on 20.03.2017. The restoration Application was also dismissed on 9.5.2017. When the matter stood thus the Special Land Acquisition Officer who had proceeded with the acquisition, passed an Award which is subjected to challenge in present writ petition. Sole grievance of the petitioner is against quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶8

It is urged that the petitioner, before the Special Land Acquisition Officer raised various submissions in respect of computation of compensation which was to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013 and that Circle Rate would prevail and would be one of the basis to determine the compensation as per Section 26 of the Act, 2013. It was urged that the land of the petitioner which was subjected to

¶9

acquisition was situated at the entry point of Kasba Faridpur over the main road from Lucknow to Faridpur. It is contended that the land therefore, was to be treated to be situated within city of Faridpur. It is contended that even the Circle Rate of the year 2014 and 2021 were filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly, however, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly, it is contended, calculated the compensation of the land in question by relying upon a sale deed of Plot No.161 dated 09.06.2008. It is contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer patently erred in computing the compensation which ought to have been in the terms of the provision contained under the Act, 2013 by following the criteria of taking into consideration the market value of the land. It is in these factual backgrounds the petitioner seeks the mandamus as referred supra.

¶10

It is borne out from the pleading and the submission that Award has been passed by Authority concern in the terms of the provisions contained in the Act, 2013 and the petitioner is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation award. That Section 64 of the Act, 2013 makes a provision regarding reference to Authority. Sub-section (1) of Section 64 mandates that "any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation , the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested." That sub-section (2) makes provision as regard to filing of an application/objection stipulates " the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken;

¶11

Provided that every such application shall be made-

¶12

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

¶13

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire:

¶14

Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso."

¶15

In the case at hand since the petitioner has grievance about amount of compensation Award, in our considered opinion, he has remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 seeking reference to Authority.

¶16

Though, at this stage, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15804 of 2016 decided on 26th September, 2016, Writ (C) No.40 of 2017 decided on 28.03.2017, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44720 of 2016 decided on April 18, 2017 and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.60276 of 2015 decided on May 9, 2017 to substantiate the contention that even a Writ Court directed the Authority concern to recompute the compensation in terms of the statutory provisions.

¶17

True it is that Co-ordinate Benches of this Court has disposed of writ petitions directing the Authorities concern to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, 2013. However, there is no law laid down that invariably in all cases similar direction is to be issued.

¶18

In our considered opinion since Section 64 of the Act, 2013 lays down elaborate procedure in the event of person not accepting the amount of the compensation awarded to seek a reference to the Authority which means the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority established under Section 51 of the Act, 2013.

¶19

We are not inclined to accept the plea for direction to the Authority concern to revisit the claim of the petitioner for enhance compensation on the touchstone of the provisions contained under the Act, 2013. As we are not inclined to entertain the plea raised by the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to seek reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. In case such a reference is raised before the Authority concern, the Authority shall not reject the application on the ground of delay and latches instead examining the same on its own merit in accordance with law.

¶20

The petition is finally disposed of in above terms.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.2.2021 N Tiwari

¶22

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

C/M Chhangamal Anglo Sanskrit Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Chhangamal Anglo Sanskrit Inter College and Another 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 Charminar Stone Crusher Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs Additional District Magistrate (Administration) and Another

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sneh Prabha Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Babu and 3 Others Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Janvikas Society U.P. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others