Disposed

Smt. Ahmadi v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2021WRIC/8150/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to produce title documents before the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority regarding land acquisition by consent. It held that since the land purchase was voluntary and not compulsory acquisition, the petitioner should pursue civil remedies for title disputes and stated no opinion on the merits. Liberty was granted to press t

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to press claim before Fourth/Fifth Respondents and pursue civil remedies if dissatisfied.

Smt. Ahmadi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8150 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Ahmadi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal,Alok Kumar Yadav,Raj Kumar Dhama

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3; Sri A.B. Singhal for respondents 4 and 5; Ms Jigyasa Singh holding brief of Sri Alok Kumar Yadav for respondents 6 to 8; and perused the record.

¶6

The fourth respondent (Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority) issued a public notice disclosing its intent to acquire the land by consent from the farmers of village Tirthali. The name of those farmers were mentioned in the notice to invite objections from persons concerned. It appears that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner filed objection before the fourth respondent. On her objection, fourth respondent issued notice dated 24th November, 2020 requiring the petitioner to be present in the office with all necessary documents in support of her objection.

¶7

According to the petitioner, she has appeared before the concerned officer and has produced papers but without deciding the objection of the petitioner, the fourth respondent is proceeding to purchase the land without making payment of any compensation to the petitioner.

¶8

The prayer in this petition is to command the fourth and fifth respondent not to make payment of compensation to the private respondents 6 to 8 in lieu of purchase of certain plots. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the notices dated 24th November, 2020 and 1st December, 2020 by which the petitioner has been required to be present in the office with proof of her title.

¶9

As the land is not being acquired by taking recourse to compulsory acquisition laws but is being purchased through sale deed, in case the sale is to be made by a person not having valid title, the person aggrieved with such proposed sale may seek injunction by taking recourse to such ordinary civil remedies as may be advised. Since by the impugned notice the petitioner has only been called upon to appear and produce documents of her title, we do not find any good reason to entertain this petition.

¶10

The writ petition is therefore disposed off by giving liberty

¶11

to the petitioner to press her claim before the fourth/fifth respondent and if she is not satisfied with the decision taken by them, she may take recourse to such other civil remedies, as may be advised.

¶12

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of claim of either party.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the petition is disposed off.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.8.2021. Rks.

Smt. Ahmadi v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ahmadi v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Anwar Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Smt.Fulra Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mohit Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahipal Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Subhash Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jugal Kishor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others