Allowed

Rashid Ali v. Union of India Thru. Its Director of General Central Reserve Police Force and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022/8306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondent authorities to pay enhanced compensation claimed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within two months, noting an unreasonably long delay of 13 years in deciding the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay enhanced compensation within two months and entitlement to admissible interest.

Rashid Ali Vs Union of India Thru. Its Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8306 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rashid Ali Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Its Director Of General Central Reserve Police Force And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and Dy. Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri R.K. Maurya, learned counsel representing the Central Reserve Police Force and learned State Counsel representing the State Authorities.

¶4

The land in question comprised of khasra plot no.1114 having an area of 0-14-0 i.e. 14 biswas situated in Village Bijnor, Tehsil Sadar (Now Sarojini Nagar) District Lucknow, was acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, vide notifications under Section 6/17 of the said Act issued on 08.02.1995 and 09.05.1995 respectively.

¶5

It appears that claim of the petitioner in this petition is for payment of some enhanced compensation.

¶6

Learned State Counsel has got certain instructions from the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Lucknow, which are contained in its letter dated 07.12.2022. The instructions contained in the said letter are taken on record. As per the said instructions, pursuant to the acquisition of the land, Award was declared on 27.12.2006 and prior to that the possession was also handed over to Central Reserve Police Force on 23.07.1997. The instructions further record that petitioner was paid the amount of compensation earlier on declaration of Award. However, under Section 28-A in Case No.5/98, a decision was made on 08.07.2009, whereby the rate of compensation was enhanced and accordingly, the petitioner by means of an application dated 28.09.2009 also laid claim for enhanced compensation under

¶7

Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶8

It is strange that since 2009, to be specific from 02.09.2009, though a long period of 13 years have lapsed, the claim of the petitioner for payment at the enhanced rate of compensation has yet not been decided.

¶9

The instructions contained in the letter dated 07.12.2022 also contain a letter dated 23.11.2022 written by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) to the Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,24,227.47/- has been demanded to be deposited by the Central Reserve Police Force.

¶10

It is beyond comprehension as to why the application made by the petitioner on 02.09.2009 is now being taken up after expiry of the around 13 years. Such a situation cannot be appreciated by this Court.

¶11

At this juncture, learned counsel for the Central Reserve Police Force has stated that no delay on the part of C.R.P.F. has occurred hence C.R.P.F cannot be saddled with any responsibility.

¶12

However, having regard to the overall facts as noted above, we dispose of this petition with a direction to make payment to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authorities concerned. The amount which Central Reserve Police Force may be required to provide to the State Government/ Land Acquisition OfÏcer/ Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) shall also be provided within a reasonable time but at the earliest.

¶13

We make it clear that the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the admissible rate for delayed payment of enhanced amount of compensation.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.12.2022 Rahul

¶15

Digitally signed by RAHUL TRIPATHI Date: 2022.12.14 10:13:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rashid Ali v. Union of India Thru. Its Director of General Central Reserve Police Force and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Ali v. Union of India Thru. Its Director of General Central Reserve Police Force and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home (Police) Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others Vs Rinki Yadav

Alka Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Govt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Sadashiv Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Sunil Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Ram Dularey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Vibhag Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Mohd. Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another