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

Court No. - 39

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37115 of 2022 Petitioner :- Satish Chand And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 19 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar,Anish Kumar Upadhyay

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Praveen Kumar

¶4

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

¶5

This is a wholly misconceived writ petition filed for the following relief :-

¶6

"i. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the compensation and solatium to petitioners against acquisition of petitioners' land bearing plot no. 77 area 1Bigha and 16 Biswa situated at Village Barhpura, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautambudh Nagar."

¶7

It is an admitted fact of the matter that the acquisition notifications with respect to the land in question were published in the year 1977-78. It seems that a Writ Petition No. 10630 of 1978 was filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners challenging the acquisition notifications but the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed by the judgment and order dated 15.03.1982.

¶8

It is sought to be submitted in paragraph no. '14' of the writ petition that petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 of the aforesaid writ petition had passed away. At that point of time, the petitioners no. 5, 6 and 7 of the present writ petition were minor and, hence, they were not aware of the order of withdrawal. It is, thus, submitted that though the land of the petitioners had been acquired but no compensation and solatium has been awarded to the petitioners. The petitioners were minor at the time of filing of previous writ petition and the predecessor of the petitioners could not pursue the matter over the land which was acquired by the State Authorities.

¶9

However, in none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, the date of death of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein namely the writ petitioners of the previous writ petition has been indicated. The date of declaration of the award has also not been indicated in any of the paragraphs of the present writ petition. The statement of the petitioners that the compensation has not been awarded to them is also misconceived, inasmuch as, in none of the

¶10

paragraph of the writ petition, there is categorical statement that the compensation with respect to the land in question had not been received by the original tenure holders.

¶11

Be that as it may, for the above noted reasons, we find that the prayer made herein is misconceived.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 sailesh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaiprakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Santosh Sharma Vs State of U.P.Thru.the Prin.Secy.Min.of Urban Devp. and 2 Ors.

Ram Surat and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Alok Sharma Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Vishwanath Kushwaha and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others