Dismissed

Nepal Singh v. Union of India and 14 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021WRIC/4728/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order rejecting his claim of absolute ownership through oral partition for acquired land. The High Court found no jurisdictional error due to lack of documentary evidence and dismissed the petition, upholding the direction to deposit compensation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order dated 23.11.2020 upheld; no costs awarded.

Nepal Singh Vs Union of India and 14 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4728 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Nepal Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

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

¶5

Being unsuccessful in getting an order for proportionate disbursement of compensation in lieu of acquisition of Gata No. 41 and Gata No. 6 situated at village Dilwara, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Meerut, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of order dated 23.11.2020 and the direction to ensure surety of compensation amount by way of depositing the same as fixed deposit or bond in the Centralizezd Bank.

¶6

The undisputed facts are that, for the purpose of establishemnt, management and operation of Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor Project, 8.0879 hectare of private land was acquired under the Indian Railwayts Act, 1989 vide notificated under Sections 20A, 20E ans 20H issued on 29.04.2015, 13.01.2016 and 18.02.2016 respectively. Thus, in lieu of acquisition of land bearing Gata Nos. 6, 41 and 198, respectively admeasuring 0.0093, 0.0120 and 0.3580 hectares, compensation of Rs. 544257/-, Rs. 702268/- and Rs. 20950983/- were determined. In respect of disbursement of compensation qua acquisition of land relating to Gata Nos. 6 and 41, objections were filed by Nepal Singh son of late Lal Singh, the petitioner, Rajaram son of Gangadas and Ramnath son of Govind Gupta. The claim of the petitioner vide objection dated 06.05.2017 was that the part of land of Gata Nos. 6 and 41 which was acquired are his absolute ownership on the basis of oral mutual partition.

¶7

The Competent Authority vide an impugned order declined the claim on the findings that there was no partition and that the land forming part of Gata Nos. 6, 41 and 198 were joint ownership. The Authority found:

¶8

“mHk; i{kksa dk lquk x;k rFkk i=koyh ij j[ks vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA Qlyh lu 1422&1427 [krkSuh [kkrk la[;k 00280 ds xkVk la[;k 6 {ks=Qy 1-2270 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ij vkifRrdrkZ la[;k&1 usiky rFkk foi{khx.k l[;k&1 iznhi] dqynhi] Tokyk] lUnhi] Jherh ljkstnsoh ,oa jkds'k dqekj 'kekZ] lrsUnz 'kekZ o izoh.k dqekj la;qDr :i ls ladze.kh; Hkwfr/kj ntZ gSA blh izdkj Qlyh lu 1422&1427 [krkSuh [kkrk la[;k 00279 ds xkVk la[;k 41 {ks=Qy 1-3610 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ij vkifRrdrkZ la[;k&3 jkeukFk rFkk foIk{khx.k la[;k&1 iznhi] dqynhi] Tokyk lUnhi Jherh ljkstnsoh ,oa jkds'k dqekj 'kekZ] lrsUnz 'kekZ o izoh.k dqekj la;qDr :i ls ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj ntZ gSA blh izdkj [kkrk la[;k 00070 ds xkVk la[;k 198 {ks=Qy 0-9760 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ij vkifRrdrkZ la[;k&jktkjke o pUnzfdju rFkk foi{khx.k la[;k&2 txohj la;qDr :i ls ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj ntZ gSA bl izdkj [krkSuh [kkrk la[;k 280] 279 o 70 dze'k% xkVk la[;k 6] 41 o 198 es fufgr Hkwfe la;qDr [kkrk dh Hkwfe gSa iz'uxr [kkrkvksa ds vUrxZr fufgr {ks=Qy dh Hkwfe dk fof/kor caVckjk ugh gqvk gS rFkk [kkrk dh leLr Hkwfe dh Js.kh leku gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa [kkrk esa lfEefyr lHkh [kkrsnkjksa dk lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ij LokfeRo gSA vr% [kkrk la[;k 280] 279] o 70 esa lfEefyr lHkh [kkrsnkjksa ds e/; [kkrk esa muds va'k ds vuqlkj izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA

¶9

vkns'k

¶10

mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mijksDr vkifRrdrkZvksa dh mijksDr vkifRr;ka fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk vfHkfu.khZr izfrdj /kujkf'k dk [krkSuh [kkrk la[;k 280] 279] o 70 esa ntZ leLr [kkrk/kkjdksa ds e/; muds va'kks ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶11

Though it is contended that the findings arrived by the Competent Authority that there was no valid partition; however, we are not commended to any such document to establish the contention of valid partition. Reliance on the notarized affidavit of one Satyapal son of Chandrabhan execution on 28.09.2020 said to be a witness of oral partition, being not admissible to establish a valid partition, is of no assistance to the petitioner.

¶12

In view whereof, we do not perceive any jurisdictional error with the impugned order, no interference is caused.

¶13

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.

¶14

No costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Madhurima

¶16

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

Nepal Singh v. Union of India and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepal Singh v. Union of India and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hazi Akhtar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Malik Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satya Prakash Singh and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Atikurrahman Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others