Dismissed

Vivek Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2024WRIC/10548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, facing a dispute over a land acquisition deal, sought to stop compensation payment to the owner or seize it. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's rights are pending adjudication in a separate suit.

What did the court decide?

Disbursment of compensation to opposite party no. 5 or seizure of funds was not stopped.

Vivek Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84400-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10548 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Yogesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

1. The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement to sale with the owner of the land, however, dispute appears to have arisen in that context in a suit for specific performance has been filed against the owner i.e. opposite party no. 5. In the meantime, land has been acquired for public purposes.

¶6

2. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking the relief inter-alia that the compensation payable in view of acquisition of the land in dispute should not be disbursed to the opposite party no. 5 or if disbursed, his account should be seized. Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deals with disputes as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it and how such issues are to be deal with.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties says that it is highly doubtful that the petitioner has any right even under the aforesaid provision, as the basis of the claim is only an agreement to sale. No sale has actually taken place prior to the notification for acquisition.

¶8

4. We do not wish to enter into this controversy. Suffice it to say that the petitioner, if has a cause, will have to take recourse to other remedies prescribed in law, as we cannot interfere in the matter, at this stage, in the facts as noticed hereinabove, where the rights of petitioner are pending adjudication in a suit for declaration in the context of an agreement to sale.

¶9

5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶10

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶11

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Anuj Singh

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vivek Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Lucknow Vs M/S Shimla Products 286/73 Niwaj Khera Aishbagh Lucknow

Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Vs Anil Kumar Gupta

Smt. Ishrat Jahan and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Ansar Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shahrun Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others