Disposed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Up Thru.District Collector/Zilaadhikari and Others

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2022WRIC/240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner claimed compensation for his share of land acquired for an expressway. The Court held that since the Lekhpal's report confirmed the petitioner was in possession of his share, he was not entitled to the relief of delivery or compensation under facts.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed off with observation that the petitioner is not entitled to relief as he is in possession of his land share.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Up Thru.District… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 240 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- State Of Up Thru.District Collector/Zilaadhikari And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

The petitioner in the instant Writ Petition has pleaded that the land bearing Gata No. 743 measuring 0.680 hectares situated in village Edilpur, Pargana Khandasa, Tahsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya was jointly recorded in the revenue records in the names of the petitioner and one Anil Kumar son of Ram Singh. Anil Kumar executed a sale deed in respect of his half share in the land in favour of one Mohammed Habib son of Yaar Mohammed, but the name of Muhammad Habib was erroneously mutated as bhumidhar of the entire land of Gata number 743 measuring 0.680 hectares. In the meantime, a part of the aforesaid land was required for construction of an expressway and Mohammad Habib transferred an area of 0.387 hectares to U. P. Expressway and Industrial Area Development Authority and received compensation therefor. The petitioner then filed a case under section 32/38 of the U. P. Revenue Code and by means of an order dated 20-12-2018 passed by the S.D.M. Milkipur, his name was re-entered in the Khatauni as co-tenure holder of the land bearing Gata No. 743.

¶9

The petitioner then moved an application before the District Magistrate Ayodhya demanding compensation payable in respect of his share of the land, upon which an enquiry was conducted by the concerned Lekhpal. A copy of the report dated

¶10

30-07-2021 submitted by the Lekhpal has been annexed by the petitioner alongwith the Writ Petition, in which the Lekhpal has reported that an area of 0.293 hectares from the land bearing Gata number 743 was purchased from Mohammed Habib by means of a sale deed executed in favour of U. P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority and consideration in respect of the same has been paid to the seller. The petitioner is a cotenure holder of the aforesaid Gata and he is in possession of 0.340 hectares land of the aforesaid Gata and he is not entitled to be paid any compensation.

¶11

The petitioner claims to have given repeated applications to the District Magistrate demanding payment of compensation or delivery of possession of his land and ultimately he has filed the instant Writ Petition with a prayer for a direction to the opposite parties to deliver possession of his share of the land or payment of compensation in lieu thereof.

¶12

From a perusal of the report of the concerned Lekhpal filed by the petitioner himself, it appears that from the land Gata No. 743 measuring 0.680 hectares, of which the petitioner claims to be a co-tenure holder having a share of 0.340 hectares, merely an area of 0.293 hectares has been purchased from the other cotenure holder Mohammad Habib and the Lekhpal has reported that the petitioner’s share measuring 0.340 hectares in the land of the aforesaid Gata is in possession of the petitioner.

¶13

Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him in the Writ Petition.

¶14

However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the land of his share in Gata No. 743 not being demarcated so as to avoid any dispute regarding possession etc., he may seek redressal of his grievances under the provisions of the U. P. Revenue Code and in case any such proceedings are initiated by the petitioner, this

¶15

Court has hope and trust that the same will be decided in accordance with the law.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed off.

¶17

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. ] Order Date :- 18.1.2022 Santosh/-

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Up Thru.District Collector/Zilaadhikari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Up Thru.District Collector/Zilaadhikari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nayan Verma Vs State of U.P through the Secre. and 4 Others

Rasiyawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko, 4 Other

State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy, Public Work Dep, Sect, Lko and Another Vs Ravi Das