Writ petition challenging land acquisition notice issued in name of deceased father dismissed. Court held mutation made notice effective and no prejudice caused by mentioning deceased name.
Writ petition against notice dated 19.01.2022 dismissed with no direction to modify.
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. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3140 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohan Dass Pandey Respondent :- District Magistrate, Godna And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunakar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.
By means of this writ petition a challenge has been made to a notice dated 19.01.2022 issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer, District Gonda issued under Section 21 (4) & (5) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued in the name of Ram Bhajan who is the father of the petitioner and at the time of issuance of said notice he was already dead. Submission thus is that no notice could have been issued against a dead person.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of his father late Ram Bhajan the name of the petitioner was ordered to be mutated by means of an order passed by Tehsildar (Judicial) Mankapur, District Gonda on 08.03.2021 and the said order was also incorporated in the relevant khatauni pertaining to 1423-1428F, on 19.03.2021 and even then notice was not issued to the petitioner rather to his deceased father.
Section 20 of 2013 Act provides that the the Collector shall
cause the land intended to be acquired to be marked out and measured and a plan to be made. Section 21 of the Act mandates the Collector that he shall publish the public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interested in such land may be made to him.
Sub Section (2) of Section 21 of the Act provides that public notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall state the particulars of the land and will require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent or advocate before the Collector. The purpose of issuing such notice thus is to make every person interested aware of the fact that government intends to take possession of certain land for public purposes. It is in this background that Sub Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act requires that Collector shall "also" serve notice to the aforesaid effect on the occupier of the land and all such persons known or believed to be interested shall be entitled to act for persons so interested.
When we peruse the notice dated 19.01.2022, we find that it clearly proclaims that it is not only the notice, rather any such person who has some interest may present himself before the Collector on 18.02.2022. It is not the case of the petitioner that the notice as required under different Sub Sections of Section 21 of the Act were not published on the website or it was not published at convenient places or near the land to be taken. Merely because the notice does not make a mention of the name of the petitioner would not entitle him to get the notice quashed.
It is also relevant to note that khatauni pertaining to 14231428F which has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ
petition contains the name of late Ram Bhajan. It is only on the right hand side of the khatauni that the mutation order passed on 8.3.2021 has been incorporated. Thus, it appears that mistakenly the name of the deceased tenure holder namely Ram Bhajan, who is the father of the petitioner, is mentioned in the notice. However, since no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner merely because of mention of the name of his deceased father in the notice, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.) Order Date :- 26.5.2022 Ram.
Digitally signed by RAM SINGH Date: 2022.05.27 10:25:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice issued mentioning a deceased person entitles a mutation order holder to have the notice quashed.
Whether omission of the petitioner's name in a land acquisition notice causes substantive prejudice.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Dass Pandey
District Magistrate, Godna And Others
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
