Dismissed

Ramchandra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023WRIC/36005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner was a co-sharer of land (Gata no.138) where a partition decree was passed in 2021. The court found that one co-sharer had already sold a portion of the land to the National Highway Authority and received compensation in 2020. The petition seeking compensation and protection against demolition was dismissed as misconceived.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was not entitled to compensation or protection against demolition as the land portion was already sold to the National Highway Authority.

Ramchandra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36005 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ramchandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal,Saurabh

¶2

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

¶3

Sri Saurabh learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the National Highways Authority.

¶4

The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

¶5

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pay the compensation of the share of the petitioner of gata no.138 situated at Mirza Adampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh.

¶6

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disposes the petitioner from his house constructed over Gata no.138 situated at Mirza Adampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh."

¶7

The petitioner herein claim to be co-sharer of Gata no.138 situated at Village-Mirza Adampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh, Khatauni of which is appended at page-25 to the paper book.

¶8

A perusal of Khatauni indicates that the total area of Gata no.138 was 0.6660 hectares and it was recorded in the name of various persons in the khatauni for the year 2015-18 fasli.

¶9

A perusal of the record indicates that a partition decree dated 25.11.2021 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate situated at Lalganj Azamgarh in the partition under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶10

On an application filed by Sri Shanti Devi w/o Shayama in whose favour a sale deed was executed by Triloki s/o Lochan respondent no.6, brother of the petitioner herein.

¶11

A perusal of the khatauni at page-'25' of the paper book further shows that the name of the Shanti Devi has recorded in the revenue record. A further perusal of the record indicates that Triloki s/o Lochan, one of the co-sharers of Khata no.138 had executed a sale deed in favour of the National Highway Authority with respect to Gata no.138 area 0.0720 hectares.

¶12

The copy of the said sale deed is appended at Annexure-'4' to the writ petition and finds place at page-'32' of the paper book.

¶13

The complete copy of the sale deed executed by Triloki s/o Lochan has not been appended with the writ petition and the date of execution of the said sale deed cannot be found from the said document. However, from a perusal of the page no.36 of the paper book, it seems that Triloki s/o Lochan vendor had received compensation/sale consideration of Rs.87,47,885 for D.D 751458 dated 02.09.2020 drawn by Syndicate Banking.

¶14

A further perusal of the letter dated 07.05.2021 at page-'91' of the paper book issued by the Project (technical) Director, Project Implementation Unit, Varanasi indicates that the Gata no.138 area 0.0720 hectares was sold by Triloki s/o Lochan in favour of the National Highway Authority and the said area is affected by construction of National Highway because of widening of National Highway Act NH-233.

¶15

A perusal of the partition decree dated 25.11.2021 indicates that National Highway Authority has not been impleaded as one of the co-sharers of the said land namely Gata no.138 area 0.6660 hectares.

¶16

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the National Highways Authority is illegally demolishing the house construction by the petitioner in his share of Gata no.138 and as such the petitioner is entitled for compensation, therefore, is found misconceived.

¶17

From the above noted facts, it is evident that the present petition is a proxy writ petition filed on behalf of the vendor of the property in favour of the National Highway, based on the partition decree wherein National Highways has not been impleaded as necessary party.

¶18

No relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the partition decree dated 25.11.2021 when it is evident that sale consideration for sale of plot no.138 area 0.0720 hectares had already been received by one of the co-sharers namely Triloki s/o Lochan in the year 2020.

¶19

The present petition is, thus, dismissed as misconceived.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.2.2023/Harshita

¶21

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramchandra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Mohd. Shanu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Chand and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others

Alok Sharma Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Vidyawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Murti Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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