Disposed

Santlal and 4 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2021WRIC/9835/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition alleging unauthorized land use for Rail Over Bridge construction without compensation. It granted liberty to petitioners to approach the District Magistrate to ascertain utilization and acquisition status within specific deadlines, avoiding a merits decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioners to represent claim for compensation before District Magistrate by annexing documents of title and possession.

Santlal and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9835 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Santlal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7; and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for the respondents 2 and 4.

¶6

The grievance of the petitioners as disclosed in paragraph 5 of the writ petition is that his land has been forcibly used in January-February, 2020 with the help of local police, despite resistance of the petitioner, for raising constructions of Rail Over Bridge by U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the land has neither been acquired nor any compensation has been paid to the petitioners and therefore there has been violation of his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶7

In this petition, prayer has been made that the respondents be directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the disputed land. In the alternative, compensation has been sought.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel representing U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited have suggested that this matter can be disposed off by requiring the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to first ascertain whether the land of the petitioners has been illegally utilized. If it has been utilized then the claim of the petitioners for compensation may be addressed.

¶9

In view of the above, to serve the ends of justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to represent their claim before the sixth respondent (District Magistrate, Prayagraj) by annexing all the relevant documents showing their title and possession over the disputed land. If any such representation is filed within a period of three weeks from today along with copy of this order, the District Magistrate shall call for comments from the revenue officials concerned including the officers of the Public Works Department to ascertain whether the plot of the petitioners has been utilized or not. In case it is found that

¶10

the plot of the petitioners has been utilized then it would be ascertained whether the same has been acquired or not. If it is found that it has been utilized without acquisition, then an effort shall be made to compensate the petitioners. It is expected that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing of such representation. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any decision taken pursuant to this direction, it shall be open to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy as may be advised.

¶11

The petition stands disposed off .

¶12

Order Date :- 23.6.2021 AKShukla/-

Santlal and 4 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santlal and 4 Others 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

Bandana Pandey Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs State Election Commission and Another

Lokendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gopal Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Budhram and 13 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Nasreen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others