Dismissed

Chetram @ Mintu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2022WRIC/10106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench dismissed the petition challenging the enhanced compensation rate for 5% additional abadi land acquired in Village Sadarpur. The court held that since all writ petitions regarding the same acquisition notification were specifically dismissed, no further relief could be granted to other land owners based on that judgment.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for enhanced compensation @ Rs. 44,000/- per square meter was dismissed.

Chetram @ Mintu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 34

¶2

**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 10106 of 2022

¶4

Chetram @ Mintu and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Through :- Mr. Jai Shanker Misra, Advocate.

¶7

v/s

¶8

State of U.P. and others .....Respondents Through :- Mr. A.K. Roy, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4, Mr. Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The prayer made in the present petition is for a direction to the respondent no.2 to pay compensation @ Rs. 44,000/- per square meter in place of Rs. 22,000/- per square meter for 5% additional abadi land with reference to the acquisition thereof in Village - Sadarpur, Pargana & Tehsil - Dadri, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar in terms of the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB).

¶12

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that challenge to the acquisition pertaining to land of Village - Sadarpur vide same notification was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj Singh (supra) and the writ petitions were dismissed. Hence, the petitioners cannot be granted any benefit in terms thereof.

¶13

To this, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only three writ petitions pertaining to Village - Sadarpur were dismissed and not all of them.

¶14

2 WRIC No. 10106 of 2022

¶15

We are not impressed with this argument. Whatever writ petitions, pertaining to acquisition of land in Village - Sadarpur vide same notification were listed before the Full Bench of this Court, the same were specifically dismissed. That does not mean that any further relief, which was not granted to the writ petitioners before the Full Bench of this Court, could be granted to any other land owners.

¶16

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶18

Allahabad 22.04.2022

¶19

Amit Mishra/Rahul Dwivedi

¶20

Whether the order is speaking : Yes

¶21

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.04.25 17:16:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chetram @ Mintu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetram @ Mintu and 4 Others 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Moin Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramdev Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dilip Kumar Dubey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

The Basic Education Board U.P. Prayagraj and Another Vs Arvind Kumar Singh and 3 Others

Shiv Vishal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others