Dismissed

Tejal Uppal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2022WRIC/526/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2002 and return the land under Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Court noted the petitioner was a chronic litigant and that the land had been utilized long ago.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition standing dismissed; land acquisition proceedings not quashed; no return of land ordered.

Tejal Uppal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 25/E-File

¶2

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****

¶3

Writ C No. -526 of 2022

¶4

Tejal Uppal ...Petitioner

¶5

Through:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

¶6

v/s

¶7

State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

¶8

Through:- Ms. Akansha Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 4, Mr. Kaushlendra Nath Singh, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing of acquisition of land for which notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1894 Act’) was issued on March 30, 2002, process of which stood completed long back. A further direction has been sought for return of the land to the petitioner in terms of Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1973’) on the plea that the same was unutilized. Prayer has also been made for decision of the representations filed by the petitioners.

¶12

From perusal of the paper book, it is evident that the petitioner is a chronic litigant. He is trying to mislead the Court by filing number of petitions and also the State by filing representation after representation. The writ petitions filed by the petitioner in this Court could be summed up as under :-

¶13

(i) Writ C No.20783 of 2002:

¶14

This petition was filed by the petitioner for a direction on the

¶15

2 Writ C No. -526 of 2022

¶16

respondents to exempt the land of petitioner in view of Section 48 of the 1894 Act. The same was disposed of vide order dated May 20, 2002 with a direction to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner.

¶17

(ii) Writ C No.8485 of 2004 :

¶18

This petition was filed impugning the letters dated June 3, 2002 and July 25, 2003 issued by respondent no.4. The petition was dismissed vide order dated February 27, 2004 treating the same to be premature.

¶19

(iii) Writ C No.21364 of 2004 :

¶20

Order dated January 8, 2004 passed by Special Secretary, Government of U.P. rejecting claim of the petitioner was challenged by filing this writ petition along with other prayers. The same was dismissed in default vide order dated May 31, 2016.

¶21

(iv) Writ C No.40276 of 2019 :

¶22

This petition was filed saying that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in terms of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act. The same was dismissed on December 10, 2019.

¶23

(v) Writ C No.8536 of 2020 :

¶24

This petition was filed seeking direction to the respondents to decide representation dated February 11, 2020 filed by the petitioner. The petition was disposed of vide order dated March 6, 2020.

¶25

(vi) Writ C No.10275 of 2020 :

¶26

This petition was filed raising the similar issues, which were already dealt with in earlier Writ C No.8536 of 2020. The petition was disposed of on June 25, 2020.

¶27

From perusal of the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioner, it is evident that challenging the acquisition of the land vide Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act issued on March 30, 2002, a

¶28

3 Writ C No. -526 of 2022

¶29

writ petition bearing Writ C No.20783 of 2002 was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated May 20, 2002. Hence, there is no question of raising the same issue again.

¶30

Besides this, perusal of the copy of photographs filed by the petitioner along with petition shows that it is not a School, rather a stopgap construction made just to mislead the Court or the authorities that on the land in question a Girls School was existing. The construction was nothing more than a ‘C’ Class construction of a temporary shed.

¶31

As far as the issue regarding benefit of Section 17 of the 1973 Act is concerned, it has come on record that by the order dated January 8, 2004 passed by respondent no.2, possession of the land in question was handed over by the State to the NOIDA Authority, hence, the same stood utilized after acquisition.

¶32

Still further, the petitioner had number of occasions to raise the aforesaid issue in earlier writ petitions as well filed by him, however, he did not raise the same, rather on dismissal of one writ petition he filed representations raising same and other issue and then filed writ petitions in this Court. Such litigants need to be thrown out at the threshold as they are chunking the docket in the Courts.

¶33

In view of reasons mentioned above, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶34

Allahabad January 25, 2022 Manish Himwan

¶35

Whether the order is speaking : √Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Tejal Uppal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejal Uppal v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Imran Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vanshraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Indrajeet Singh Kori and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Kanpur University and Another Vs Dr Bharti Dixit and 2 Others