The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for directions regarding land acquisition compensation enhancement and proceedings under the 2013 Act dismissing the writ as the contents were unsubstantiated, vague, and lacking explanation for delay or legal application.
The writ petition was dismissed in its entirety.
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.
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9800 of 2021
Petitioner :- Aneesh Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Sen Singh Vatsa Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. Shri Avadhesh Narayan appears for the respondent no. 2.
This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, to pass appropriate order on application dated 27.10.2017, 7.1.2018 and 10.12.2019 of petitioner regarding enhancement of compensation pending before respondent no. 1 within some stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, to proceed and pass order as per law provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act 2013."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bonafide claimant for compensation in respect of the acquired land no. 195 area 0.4800, 298 area 0.3880, 142 area 0.4800, 444 area 0.4910 and land no. 515 area 0.1140 situated at Village Chakbabura Alemabad, Naini, Karchhana, Allahabad. It is stated that the proceedings for acquisition of the aforesaid land were undertaken and the award passed by the Competent Authority was challenged in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being L.A. Case No. 164 of 1989 which came to be allowed by means of a judgement and order dated 29.8.1992. It is stated that another Reference Case No. 75 of 1990 was filed by a co-sharer which is still pending. The petitioner moved an application dated 7.1.2018 before the District Magistrate claiming 1/4th sharer compensation as co-sharer.
A perusal of the writ petition reveals that the contents are wholly unsubstantiated and vague. The petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in agitating his claim after the
reference was allowed on 29.8.1992. It is not his case that he had filed any application under Section 28A of the Act of 1894 before the Authority concerned within the time prescribed.
This petition is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021 A. V. Singh
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pass an order on pending compensation enhancement applications.
Whether the petitioner has validly claimed compensation as a bonafide co-sharer after explaining the delay in agitating the claim post-reference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Aneesh Ahmad
State Of U P
Respondent no. 2
Sanjay Yadav
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
