Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2021WRIC/5444/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of bank communication orders freezing her account and directing refund of excess acquisition compensation. Court dismissed petition due to lack of evidence substantiating claim for full building compensation or sole ownership. Communication orders directing refund of Rs.9,14,440/- not quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication orders dated 08.10.2020 and 31.12.2020 were not quashed; petition dismissed without costs.

Sudami Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5444 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Sudami Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Dubey,Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,Vipul Kumar Dubey

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal

¶6

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

¶7

The petitioner seeks quashment of communication orders dated 08.10.2020 and 31.12.2020. Whereas, by communication dated 08.10.2020 the Respondent-Bank is directed not to disburse the amount deposited in the account of the petitioner till the final decision is taken in the dispute.

¶8

That by order dated 31.12.2020 the petitioner is called upon to refund the excess amount paid in lieu of the acquisition/demolition of the house constructed over Plot No.329 required for expansion of Airstrip Manduri.

¶9

Contention of the petitioner is that as she had two storeyed building over plot no.329 subjected to removal, Rs.17,83,738.00 was determined as compensation; which was deposited on 25.3.2019 in her account. The said structure it is submitted, was demolished in pursuance to notice therefor issued on 6.6.2019.

¶10

That by impugned letter dated 8.10.2020 the Bank was informed that since the petitioner was only entitled for compensation of upper storey of the building, the compensation in lieu of entire building was erroneously deposited; therefore it was requested to freeze the account till

¶11

¶12

the matter is enquired into. That later by communication dated 31.12.2020 the petitioner was called upon to refund Rs.9,14,440.00 being the excess paid to the petitioner. The letter states :-

¶13

संख्यार्० 1855 /आठ- िवि०भू०अ०अ० (सं०सं०) आजमगढ़। िदिनार्ंक 31/12/2020 िविषयः धिनरािशर् वि िापस करनर् े क से म्बन्धि मे।

¶14

श्री सुदिार्मी पत्नी रार्मनरेशि ग्रार्म सार्ती, पोस्ट बीबीपुर कदिीम परगनार् वि तहसील सगड़ी जनपदि आजमगढ़

¶15

आप अविगत है िक हविार्ई पट्टी मे ित स्थित मकार्न कार् भुगतार्न रू० 17,83,739.00 भुगतार्न िदिनार्ंक 25.03.2019 को िविशिेष भूिम अध्यार्िप्ति अिधिका र ्ी आजमगढ़ द्वा र ्ार् िकयार् गयार् है।

¶16

आयुक्त आजमगढ़ मण्डल आजमगढ़ के पत्र िदिनार्ंक 02 िदिसम्बर 2020 द्वा र ्ार् मकार्न के प्रथिम तक कार् मुल्यार्ंकन रू० 9,14,440.00 है, की विसूली िकयार् जार्नार् है। उक्त धिनरार्िशि से 3,74,202.00 रू० रार्षरीय रार्जमार्गर्या संख्यार् 233 मे अिजर्यात की गयी भूिम को समार्योिजत कर िलयार् गयार् है। अविशिेष धिनरार्िशि रू० 5,40,238.00 की विसूली की जार्नी है।

¶17

भूिम अजर्यान, पुनविा्सन और पुनव्यर्याविस्थिार्पन मे उिचित प्रितका र र ् और पा र ्द ि शिर्यातार् कार् अिधिका र (उ०प्र०) िनयमार्विली 2016 के िनयम 30(2) के अन्तगर्यात आपके द्वा र ्ार् उक्त अिधिक प्रार्िप्ति धिनरार्िशि 5,40,238.00 रू० पर प्रथिम विषर्या के िलए 9 प्रितशित की दिर और पश्चिार्त विषों के िलए 15 प्रितशित की दिर पर ब्यार्ज सिहत विार्पस िकयार् जार्नार् है। यिदि आपके द्वा र ्ार् िनयत ितिथि तक उक्त धिनरार्िशि विार्पस नहीं की जार्ती है, तो िनयम 30(13) के अन्तगर्यात उक्त धिनरार्िशि को रार्जस्वि बकार्ये के रूप मे विसूली की जार्येगी।

¶18

अतः जमार् की जार्ने विार्ली कुल धिनरार्िशि 5,40,238.00 (पॉचि लार्ख चिार्िलस हजा र ् दिो सौ अड़ितस) खार्तार् संख्यार् 844300117 जमार् करते हुए एक सप्तिार्ह के अन्दिर चिार्लार्न की प्रित उपलब्धि करार्नार् सुिनित श्चित करे।

¶19

सक्षम प्रार्िधिका र ्ी/ िवि०भू०अ०अ० (सं०सं०) आजमगढ़।

¶20

Though it is contended that the petitioner is rightly paid the compensation of Rs.17,83,738.00 for the entire building as per her entitlement; however, no cogent material documents are shown to substantiate the claim. Evidently, survey was carried out determining the entitlement. The petitioner has not filed the said report to substantiate the

¶21

¶22

contention that the entire building, and not only first floor, was determined in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not filed any document to establish being the solitary owner of the building in question. As there is no cogent material to belie the finding arrived at by Authorities as to petitioner's entitlement for the compensation in lieu of the first floor of the building in question, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence.

¶23

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed .

¶24

No costs.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.2.2021 Tamang

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudami Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Ashok Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Shrikant Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zulfiqar Husain Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

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

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

Beemlawati Santlal Vishwakarma Vs State of U P and 6 Others