Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Goswami and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2022WRIC/20627/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of an application for compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court quashed the order, holding that receiving compensation without protest does not preclude a fresh application for enhanced rates when another owner has referred the award.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.05.2022 quashed; petitioners directed to decide application under Section 28-A on merits within four weeks.

Rakesh Kumar Goswami and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20627 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Goswami And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Suresh C. Dwivedi

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sresh C. Dwivedi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶5

The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 02.05.2022, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Sanyukt Sangthan), Aligarh, District Aligarh in rejecting the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 moved by the father of the petitioners on 29.09.1998.

¶6

It seems that after the death of the original tenure holders, his heirs namely the petitioners herein has pressed the application for grant of compensation on the plea of parity in terms of Section 28-A of the Act by appending the copy of the Land Acquisition Reference No. 35 of 1990.

¶7

The said application was rejected on the ground that the original tenure holder namely the predecessor in interest to the petitioners had received compensation under the award without any protest. In the said situation, the application moved by them for providing compensation at the enhanced rate based on the reference court order is liable to be rejected.

¶8

Challenging the order impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Writ -C No. 20464 of 2022 connected with other writ petitions therein, the Court has taken note of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Hansoli Devi and others, (2002) 7 SCC 273 has held that acceptance of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, with or without protest is irrelevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28-A of the Act. We may note relevant paragraph no. '11' of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another (supra) as under :-

¶9

"11. Coming to the second question for reference the receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other landowner's application for reference is answered by the reference court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner."

¶10

It is held by the Apex Court therein that a person, who has not filed application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact that he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other landlord's application for reference is answered by the reference court.

¶11

In the light of the above, the reasoning given in the order impugned for rejection of the application dated 29.09.1998 filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners under Section 28-A cannot be sustained.

¶12

The order dated 02.05.2022, passed by respondent no. 2 namely Special Land Acquisition Officer (Sanyukt Sangthan), Aligarh, District Aligarh is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

¶13

The respondent no. 2 namely Special Land Acquisition Officer (Sanyukt Sangthan), Aligarh, District Aligarh is directed to decide the application under Section 28-A of the Act strictly on merits after giving due notice and opportunity to all concerned including the petitioners, herein and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.11.2022 sailesh

¶15

Digitally signed by SAILESH PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.11.09 16:40:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar Goswami and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Goswami and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Singh and Another Vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

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

Shuieb Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanveer Tabassum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babban @ Babban Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Asha Devi Vs National Highway Authority of India and 3 Others