Dismissed

Mansoor Hassan Shah and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022WRIC/12528/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to award compensation for alleged excess area in an old land acquisition. The bench held that the petitioner failed to raise objections at the time of the award and that a subsequent ex parte order was invalid due to non-joinder of a necessary party. Claim rejected due to delay and lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the refusal to award compensation for alleged excess land was dismissed, and no compensation was granted.

Mansoor Hassan Shah and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12528 of 2011 Petitioner :- Mansoor Hassan Shah And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K. Mishra,Al-Rafea Basheer,Anand Prakash Pandey,Manoj Kumar Singh,Pratik J. Nagar,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Romeshwari Prasad,Sanjay Kumar,Smt. Shikha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.P. Srivastava,Ajit Kumar Rana,Ajit Singh Rana,Nipun Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nipun Singh learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad.

¶4

The order impugned categorically records that the land in the Bandobasti area of Arazi no. 186 was 0-7-0 (7 Biswa) which was acquired vide Gazette notifications dated 19.5.1979 and 29.6.1983. The possession of Gata No. 186 area 0-7-0 was handed over to Awas Evam Vikas Parishad on 11.2.1986. The award was declared on 29.8.1986 and compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,693.54/- was paid to the land owners on 5.2.1987 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶5

It is further recorded that the petitioners herein did not raise any dispute with regard to the area of Gata No. 186 by moving any objection on the receipt of notice under Section 29 of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Act at the time of receipt of compensation on 5.2.1987. The construction over the land in question had been commenced in the year 1987-88 and at that time, even no objection has been raised with regard to the area of Plot No. 186. The total area of the said plot recorded in the revenue records was 0-7-0 (7 Biswa).

¶6

It is an admitted fact of the matter that in the year 2002-03, the petitioner had filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act which was registered as Case No. 375/278 of 2002-03/04 and was decided exparte vide order dated 3.6.2004.

¶7

A perusal of the order dated 3.6.2004 at page '28' of the paper book indicates that the contesting party in the said suit was Gram Sabha and the panel lawyer had submitted a note therein that the Gram Sabha/State had no concern with the land in question.

¶8

However, much after the acquisition of land in Gata No. 186 in the declaratory Suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, the petitioner had not impleaded U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, which was in possession of Gata No. 186 and was necessary and proper party in the said proceeding.

¶9

It is, thus, rightly concluded by the competent authority namely the Housing Commissioner, Awas Evem Parishad in the order impugned that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation of one Bigha of Gata no. 186 on the premise of the exparte order dated 3.6.2004, which was not substantiated from the revenue entries and the proceedings under Section 229B was bad on account of non-joinder of necessary party.

¶10

A categorical stand has already been taken in the order impugned that the order dated 3.6.2004 is not binding on the Awas Evem Vikas Parishad and moreover, at the time of acquisition and taking over physical possession of Gata No. 186 on 11.2.1986, the recorded area of Gata No. 186 was only 7 Biswa. The claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation of one Bigha of Gata No. 186 for the acquisition made in the year 1983-86, therefore, is found unjustified.

¶11

The findings returned in the order impugned to the above effect is substantiated from the perusal of the order dated 3.6.2004.

¶12

On a query made by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the findings returned in the order impugned that the Bandobasti area of Gata No. 186 was 0-7-0 and the said plot was acquired in the year 1982-1986, possession of which was taken on 11.2.1986. No dispute could be raised by petitioners to the effect as to why objection with regard to the acquired area of Gata No. 186 was not taken at the time of receipt of the compensation or the award with respect to Gata No. 186 area 0-7-0 Biswa was not challenged before the competent authority.

¶13

In any case, the subsequent proceedings drawn by the petitioners in the year 2002, which has resulted in the exparte order dated 3.6.2004 cannot be made basis to pay compensation to the petitioners of the alleged excess area of Gata No. 186 that recorded in the revenue record at the time of the acquisition.

¶14

The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 15.11.2022/Brijesh

¶16

Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.11.18 18:38:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mansoor Hassan Shah and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoor Hassan Shah and Others v. State of U.P. and 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

Malook Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aditya Raj Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Parmal Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Mubarak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Othrs

Basant Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others