Disposed

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022WRIC/25425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging land acquisition was disposed of. The court noted that the acquisition proceedings and award were complete. Petitioner, claiming partial ownership, was granted liberty to approach the competent authority for disbursement of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach competent authority for disbursement of compensation.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25425 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶4

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

¶5

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press the present writ petition.

¶6

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-Development Authority. Written instructions supplied by him today is taken on record.

¶7

A perusal thereof indicates that Khasra No. 464 area 0.3950 hectares situated in revenue village Kondali Bangar, Tehsil and District Gautam Budha Nagar has been acquired under the compulsory acquisition notifications dated 8.9.2008 and 16.9.2009 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act; respectively.

¶8

The possession memo dated 3.12.2009 further indicates that the possession of the aforesaid plot has been taken and it was handed over to Noida which was the beneficiary. An award dated 14.9.2011 has also declared with respect to the land acquisition and in the list of plots with respect to which the award has been declared, Gata No. 464 (wrongly typed as Gata No. 465) area 0.3950 hectares finds place at serial no. 148 in the table given therein.

¶9

A further perusal of the table indicates that Khasra No. 465 area 1.0870 hectares has been separately indicated at serial no. 235, as the acquired plot and the said entries are co-related with the entries of the possession memo at serial nos. 189 and 190 in the table given therein.

¶10

The contention of Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned Advocate for the respondent-Noida is that the amount under the award has already been deposited by Noida.

¶11

In view of the possession memo and the award as placed before us, we do not find any good ground to entertain the petition on the plea of the petitioner that the compensation of Khasra No. 464 area 0.3950 hectares has not been determined.

¶12

The petitioner claims to be owner of an area 0.1975 hectares of Khasra No. 464, it is open for him to move an application before the competent authority for disbursement of the award.

¶13

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for disbursement of compensation, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.11.2022 Brijesh

¶15

Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.11.18 10:32:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Ram and 5 Others Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Dr. Jai Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

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

Pratap Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others