Disposed

Warisuddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021WRIC/9495/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his compensation claim for alleged wrongful removal of encroachment over land he claimed was his own. The court ruled that such factual and title disputes require evidence beyond the writ court's scope and directed the petitioner to pursue ordinary civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to take recourse to ordinary civil remedies to determine title and possession.

Warisuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9495 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Warisuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Wasim Alam,Anil Kumar,Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioner was served a notice by the Public Works Department to remove encroachment from the roadside. It appears, thereafter, encroachment was removed. Aggrieved therewith, the petitioner made a claim for compensation by stating that the occupation of the petitioner was not an encroachment of public land but was over his own land, of which, the petitioner has valid title and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.

¶6

It appears that the first writ petition, namely, Writ-C No. 27829 of 2018, filed by the petitioner was disposed of by requiring the respondents to take a decision whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per the terms of the Government Order dated 12.5.2016.

¶7

By the impugned order dated 10.11.2020, the District Magistrate, Fatehpur has rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that the title documents produced by the petitioner would not confer right on the petitioner over public land and the encroachment that was removed was from public land and, therefore, no compensation is payable.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings returned by the District Magistrate in the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 are contrary to law and it failed to accord due consideration to the title documents, the veracity of which is beyond doubt.

¶9

Be that as it may, as the issue involved in this petition would require leading of evidence, both oral and documentary, to determine the legality of title and possession of the petitioner, the appropriate course for the petitioner is to invoke the jurisdiction of a civil court by taking recourse to ordinary civil remedies. It is well settled that complicated questions of title and possession have to be determined on the basis of evidence led, oral as well as documentary, for which the writ court is not

¶10

the preferred forum.

¶11

In view of the above, we dispose of this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to ordinary civil remedies.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 A. V. Singh

Warisuddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Warisuddin v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mahmuda Begum Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Antima Singh Vs District Magistrate District-Jaunpur and Another

Ramnath Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Jairam Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Niyajuddin Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others