Dismissed

Diwakar Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2023WRIC/68598/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It held that a mere violation of Section 9(1) does not invalidate the notifications and directed petitioners to use statutory remedies regarding compensation.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the notifications and praying for release of plots and compensation is dismissed.

Diwakar Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97800-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 68598 of 2006

¶4

Petitioner :- Diwakar Tiwari And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S. Chuahan,Anoop Trivedi,Arun Kumar Tiwari,Ashwani Kr. Mishra,Raj Kumar Dhama,Vrindavan Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Srivastava,Prakash Padia,Ram Prakash Rai,Ramendra Pratap Singh,V.P. Mathur

¶6

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for NOIDA.

¶8

The present petition has been filed challenging the notifications dated 26.9.2006 and 16.11.2003 issued u/s 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as for a mandamus directing the State of U.P. to release the plots No. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the petitioners from the acquisition and not to demolish constructions already existing on the aforesaid plots. A further prayer has been made that compensation be awarded to the petitioners for the constructions and trees standing on the plots of the petitioners and petitioners may also be allotted area equal to area acquired by the State government.

¶9

From the pleadings of the writ petition, we do not find any justifiable reason to enter into the validity of the notifications issued u/s 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that possession has been taken by the State government before expiry of the period prescribed u/s 9(1) of the Act, 1894 and, therefore, notifications are liable to be quashed. There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as a mere violation of Section 9 would not result in invalidating the notifications u/s 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894. Further, notification was issued u/s 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894 and, therefore, no illegality was committed in taking possession before expiry of the period prescribed.

¶10

It has been stated by the Standing Counsel that award was declared in the case on 2.12.2009. In case the petitioners have not been awarded compensation for construction and trees standing on the plots, they have a remedy to file reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 and writ proceedings would not be appropriate remedy in the aforesaid case.

¶11

The petitioners may exercise any statutory remedy available to them in law for the purpose.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Vandana

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Diwakar Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwakar Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. and 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

M/S Hindustan Mint and Agro Prod. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Chandausi and Others

Badlu Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Saroj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others

Brij Kishore Vs State of U.P. and Others

Durgawati Devi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others