Petitioner challenged writs against land acquisition orders reducing his plot area. High Court held that the Authority's report, which formed the basis of the order, was not produced in the record, so the Court could not interfere and dismissed the petition.
None. The petition under Article 226 was dismissed pending appropriate civil recourse.
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.
1
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6724 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Nagar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1,3,4 and 5.
This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari impugned order dated 2.9.2020 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar-respondent no.4 by which the area of petitioner's plot bearing Khasra no. 205Mi in Khata No. 27 has been reduced from 0.9110 hectare to 0.1210 hectare (Annexure1 to this writ petition).
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of order dated 9.9.2020 passed by the Tehsildar Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby in Fasli Year 1427-1432 the area of petitioner's land in Khata No. 27 has been reduced from 0.9110 hectare to 0.1210 hectare in pursuance of the impugned order dated 2.9.2020 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Tehsildar Dadri to correct the entry in the revenue record of the petitioner's land of Khasra No. 205Mi in Khata No. 27 having an area of 0.9110 hectare.
(d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings so far as it relates to acquisition of petitioner's land with further direction to the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings as per provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to a notification and declaration under the Land
2
Acquisition Act 1894, an area of 0.7900 hectare was acquired from Khasra No. 205M, situate in revenue Village Saini, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar and an award was passed on 2.8.2011 which shows that Plot No. 205M was acquired from Khata No. 44 which belongs to the respondent no. 6. It is stated that during the Fasli Year 1421-1426, the Khata number of Karan Singh with regard to Khasra No. 205M was changed from 44 to 15. It is stated that Khata number of petitioner was also changed. After the death of the petitioner's father when he proceeded to get his name mutated in the revenue records, it came to his knowledge that in the Fasli Year 1427-1432, the area of the petitioner's land with respect to his present Khata No. 27 was reduced from 0.9110 to 0.1210 hectare by the order of the Tehsildar dated 9.9.2020 in pursuance to the impugned order dated 2.9.2020, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition). It is stated that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order dated 2.9.2020. It is stated that at no point of time, the area of 0.7900 hectare was ever acquired from the petitioner's land in Khasra No. 205M.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 2.9.2020 reveals that it has been passed on an application filed by the respondent no. 6 on 4.8.2020 in which he stated that his name and that of Chaval Singh (father of the petitioner) are recorded. On 4.3.2010 when respondent no.6 obtained a copy of Khatauni, the area registered in his name was 1.8290 hectare but, when he obtained a copy of Khatauni on 18.8.2020, it was found that with respect to his Khasra No. 205, an area of 1.0390 hectare was recorded. It was noticed that an area of 7900 sq. meter was not registered even though his entire area of 1.8290 hectare was released from acquisition by the Greater Noida Authority over which stands his school and residential area and on which he is in possession. It was mentioned in the application that
3
the area of 7900 sq. meter of land was acquired by the authority from the other tenure-holder Chaval Singh. It was stated that inspite of acquired land being shown against the name of Chaval Singh, name of respondent no.6 was recorded.
In the order impugned dated 2.9.2020, the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) noted that post 'Bandobast', Khasra No. 205M has a total area of 2.7400 hectare and the current status of which is as under:-
| xzke dk uke |
[kkrk la[;k |
ntZ Hkw&Lokeh dk uke | XkkVk la[;k |
[kkrs ij vafdr {ks=Qy (gsDVs;j esa) |
vU; fooj.k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 1 | xzsVj uks,Mk fodkl izkf/kdj.k |
205 fe | 0-7900 | ;Fkkor ntZ jgsxkA | |
| lSuh | 15 | dju flag iq= jkeyky fu0xzke |
205 fe | 1-0390 | 1-0390 gSDVs;j ds LFkku ij 1-8290 gSDVs;j jdck la'kksf/kr fd;k tkuk gSA |
| 27 | poy flag iq= jkeyky fu0xzke |
205 fe | 0-9110 | 0-9110 gSDVs;j ds LFkku ij jdck 0-1210 gSDVs;j la'kksf/kr fd;k tkuk gSA |
|
| dqy ;ksx & | 2-7400 | gSDVs;j |
The impugned order further reads as under:-
mijksDr rkfydk ls Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k 205 fe0 dqy jdck 2-7400 gSDVs;j esa ls 0-7900 gSDVs;j Hkwfe dk vtZu fd;k x;k gS ftldk ukekUrj.k orZeku m)j.k [krkSuh Qlyh o"kZ 1427&1432 ds [kkrk la[;k&01 ds xkVk la[;k 205 fe jdck 0-7900 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ij xzsVj uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k dk uke ntZ gSA
iz'uxr izdj.k ds lEcU/k eas bl dk;kZy; }kjk vtZu fudk;@xzsVj uks,Mk vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ls vk[;k ekaxh x;hA izkf/kdj.k }kjk vius i= la[;k& 795@Hkwys[k@2020@fnuakd 28-08-2020 esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd% /kkjk&4@17 , ao 6@17 d s izLrko d s lkFk l aYkXu dj iz sf"kr 'ktj s , ao LFky d s vuqlkj [kljk
4
l a[;k& 205fe0 e sa Ldwy o vkcknh d s uke l s Jh dju fl ag dh 1-8290 gS0 Hkwfe vtZu l s eqDr j[kh x;h gSA
;gka ;g Hkh Li"V djuk gS fd [kljk la[;k&205fe0 dqy {ks=Qy 2-7400 gSDVs;j esa ls 0-7900 gSDVs;j Hkwfe dk :i i=&2 veynjken ijokuk tks dju flag iq= jkeyky fu0xzke ds uke =qfVo'k izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS mldks 'kq) djrs gq, dju flag iq= jkeyky fu0xzke ds LFkku ij poy flag iq= jkeyky fu0xzke dk uke la'kksf/kr fd;k tkuk gSA xzke lSuh dh vftZr Hkwfe ds lkis{k [kkrk la[;k&01 xkVk la[;k&205fe vftZr jdck 0-7900 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ij jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa xzsVj uks,Mk vkS/kksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk uke ;Fkkor ntZ jgsxkA
vr% vtZu fudk;@xzsVj uks,Mk vkS/kksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ls izkIr vk[;k fnukad 28-08-2020 ds vkyksd esa mijksDr rkfydk ds LrEHk la[;k&06 esa vafdr rF;ksa ds n`f"Vxr [kkrk la[;k&15 o 27 ij jktLo vfHkys[kkas (m)j.k [krkSuh) esa rn~uqlkj vko';d la'kks/ku dj m)j.k [krkSuh dh izekf.kr izfr bl dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA laYkXud& mijksDrkuqlkj
vij f tykf/kdkjh (Hkw0v0) xkSrecq)uxjA
It is evident that while coming to the decision, the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) relied upon a letter of Greater Noida Authority No. 795/Bhulekh/2020 dated 28.8.2020 which was a report furnished by the Authority in respect of the land in question, in which it was clearly mentioned that with regard to Khasra No. 205M, school and residential area of Karan Singh having an area of 1.8290 hectare was kept out of the acquisition. Accordingly, the amendment was affected and Khatauni was directed to be issued.
The report furnished by the Greater Noida authority dated 28.8.2020 which is the basis of the impugned order has not been enclosed in the writ petition. As such, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner with regard to wrong entry being made in the Khatauni. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2.9.2020, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) as well as the consequential order of the Tehsildar dated 9.9.2020 cannot be interfered with in this petition under
5
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed . It is, however, always open for the petitioner to agitate his claim before the appropriate forum under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or by means of a civil suit, as advised.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav,J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 with the impugned land acquisition orders reducing the petitioner's land area when the evidentiary report relied upon by the authority was not pr
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the acquisition proceedings and correct the revenue record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶32
Vinod Kumar Nagar
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Yadav
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
