Dismissed

Indraj Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 May 2023WRIC/24418/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash notifications, award, and acquisition proceedings regarding land in Gautam Budh Nagar. Court held that vesting occurred and 2013 Act has no retrospective effect on vested rights. Petitioner directed to seek compensation via appropriate application under the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as misconceived; party referred to seek compensation via appropriate application in relevant court.

Indraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118117-DB

¶2

Reserved on 1.3.2023 Delivered on 26.05.2023

¶3

Court No. - 29

¶4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24418 of 2021 Petitioner :- Indraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh

¶5

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

¶6

The petitioner herein claims that he is Bhumidhar with transferable right of Gata No. 165 area 1.3030 hectares situated at village Dhanauri, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, which is being used by him as Abadi.

¶7

The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing of the notification dated 16.11.2010 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) as well as under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) dated 22.3.2011 published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶8

The prayer has also been made to quash the award dated 31.12.2013 as well as a letter dated 1.2.2018 which is an intimation to the petitioner herein from the office of the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶9

The petitioner claims that he is only interested in exemption of his land from acquisition and that he has not received compensation from the respondents, till date.

¶10

On the presentation of the writ petition, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been tagged along with Writ-C No. 27753 of 2018 (Subhash and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), but is being decided by a separate judgment.

¶11

From a perusal of the record of the instant writ petition and the contents of the letter dated 1.2.2018 under challenge, it is evident that the possession of the land-in-question namely Gata No. 165 area 1.3030 hectares has been handed over to the Development Authority on 28.6.2011. The award under Section 11(1) of the Act

¶12

1894 with respect to the land in question, has been declared on 31.12.2013 and the awarded amount of Rs. 1,12,29,057.75 has been deposited before the Court of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide Letter No. 56 dated 30.1.2016, Challan No. D-8443000 dated 27.1.2016, as the petitioner did not receive compensation. The letter dated 1.2.2018 has been written in view of the communication made by the petitioner seeking for exemption of the land in question.

¶13

At the outset, we may note that the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of more than 7 years of publication of the declaration notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and more than four years of making of the award under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1894. Amongst various grounds raised in the writ petition, the petitioner claims that the determination of compensation for the land in question was an illegal exercise and after coming into operation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land acquisition proceeding under the Act, 1894 stood repealed. The respondents cannot enforce the applicability of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶14

It is also sought to be submitted that the award dated 31.12.2013 is liable to be quashed being beyond the period of two years as per Section 11-A of the Act, 1894.

¶15

Considering the above, we may note that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question stood concluded with the transfer of possession to the Development Authority on 28.6.2011, with the making of the possession memo, which is an approved mode of transfer of possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquired land stood vested with the State Government with the transfer of possession. Once vesting is complete, the possession of the tenure holders over the land acquisition is of an unauthorized occupant.

¶16

Moreover, with the making of the award dated 31.12.2013, the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 will have no application. In any case, neither the land in question can be exempted from acquisition nor the acquisition proceedings can be said to have been lapsed by operation of law.

¶17

In any case, the claim of the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Act, 1894

¶18

on account of the award having been declared beyond the period of two years, is not open for examination in the instant writ petition, which has been filed after more than a period of 4 years of making of the award. The explanation for latches given in the writ petition is not convincing.

¶19

For the above, the writ petition is dismissed as misconceived.

¶20

However, it goes without saying that it would be open for the petitioner to seek disbursement of the compensation under the award deposited in the Court by moving a proper application appending the documents of his right, title and interest in the acquired land. He is also entitled for the benefits of the scheme/policy framed by the YEIDA, if any, for the affected tenure holders of the acquisition in question.

¶21

Any such claim of the petitioner shall be decided, independently, without being influenced by dismissal of this writ petition.

¶22

In any case, all such claims, if made, shall be decided, strictly, in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Brijesh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indraj Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indraj Singh 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

Smt.Santosh Semwal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt.Lalita Shashtri Balika Higher Secondary School and Another Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Brijraj and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagwati Prasad @ Bhabuti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bane Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Lekhraj and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others