Disposed

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIC/12044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment terminates a writ petition regarding land acquisition where possession was taken without formal acquisition. The State admitted lapses and fixed an award. The court disposed of the case, allowing the State to determine compensation under the 2013 Act and withdraw funds subject to review.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. State to release funds. Petitioner may withdraw compensation subject to right to challenge award under Section 64.

Mahendra Kumar vs State of Up and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110056-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12044 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Antim Tiwari,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

The facts of the case and controversy involved is noted in our Order dated 17.5.2024, which is extracted below:

¶7

"1. The petitioner is co-sharer of Gata No. 633, area 0.2140 hectare and Gata No. 635, area 0.0360 hectare. On 7.6.2003, the Home Department issued a notification under Section 4(1), read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking to acquire inter alia, the land of the petitioner aforesaid, for construction of police line in District Mahoba.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the said notification, the State had taken over possession of his land. The police line has been constructed long back, but the petitioner is being made to run from pillar to post for compensation for his land.

¶9

Learned State Counsel has placed on record the written instructions received from District Magistrate, Mahoba, in which it is admitted that initially a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 7.6.2003. It is stated that since it was not followed by notification under Section 6, therefore, the proceedings for acquisition had lapsed. Thereafter, fresh exercise was undertaken in the year 2010 for acquisition. However, for one reason or the other, formal notification could not be issued and in the meantime, new Act came into force. On 22.07.2014, Superintendent of Police, Mahoba wrote to the State that now acquisition would have to be made under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter 'the new Act'). However, no new proposal has been submitted by the Competent Authority so far.

¶10

Subsequently, in terms of G.O. dated 19.3.2015, steps were taken to purchase the subject land. The matter was placed before a Committee headed by ADM (Finance & Revenue) and in the meeting dated 25.7.2017, he decided to award compensation at two times the circle rate. The Superintendent of Police, Mahoba vide letter dated 11.9.2017, addressed to Additional Director General of Police, requested for financial approval of a sum of Rs. 1,37,81,730/- for payment to the petitioner and other affected persons. Reminders had been sent on 4.1.2018, 1.5.2024 and 6.5.2024 and again on 9.5.2024, but to no avail. It is stated that as and when financial approval is received, compensation amount would be paid.

¶11

The facts of the case are appalling. Concededly, the respondents had taken

¶12

possession of the land of the petitioner long back and police line was constructed over it. However, no compensation has been paid to him so far.

¶13

Firstly, the entire exercise of taking over of possession appears to be without authority of law, as there was no formal acquisition of the subject land, nor the respondents have obtained any sale deed from the petitioner. Secondly, although possession was taken long back, the State has not cared to pay compensation so far.

¶14

Time and again, we are coming across cases where the State is taking over possession of land of private persons, without any formal acquisition and thereafter, the affected persons are made to run for compensation. Such a state of affairs cannot be approved. The government officials cannot remain mute spectators when the issue relating to payment of compensation arises.

¶15

We require the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., to look into the aforesaid aspect and disclose in his affidavit how he proposes to remedy the malady and particularly, in the facts of the instant case. We require him to file his affidavit on the aforesaid aspects and also ensure payment of full compensation amount to the petitioner as per the principles enshrined in the new Act of 2013, by treating the acquisition to have been made as on date of the instant order. The said exercise will be carried out by the competent authority and it shall be ensured that the compensation amount so determined is paid to the petitioner, subject to verification of his title.

¶16

List as fresh on 8.7.2024.

¶17

Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, shall communicate the instant order to the Chief Secretary for due compliance."

¶18

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Chief Secretary has filed his personal affidavit and in which, it is stated that he held a meeting with the concerned officers on 4.7.2024 and directed the Home Department to immediately release funds for disbursement of compensation amount to the petitioner. It is also stated that an award in pursuance of the order of this Court has been passed on 25.6.2024 and whereunder as per current circle rate, the petitioner has been found entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.24,46,985/-. In para 6, it is stated that financial approval to the said amount has already been granted by order 5.7.2024.

¶19

Sri Mahesh Chaturvedi, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the compensation amount has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and would be released in favour of the petitioner within a week.

¶20

Having regard to the aforesaid stand of the State-respondents, we dispose of the instant petition by leaving it open to the petitioner to withdraw the compensation amount subject to his right to challenge the order fixing compensation before the Authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The decision fixing compensation would be treated to be an award made under the Act and shall be adjudicated accordingly.

¶21

A copy of the award has been handed over to learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 S. Singh

¶23

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Up and 5 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

Karan Singh and 14 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satya Pal Singh and 11 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt Rajkali and Another vs Union of India and 3 Others

Dr. Triveni Dutt vs Dhirendra Kumar

M/S Dcb Bank vs State of Up and 7 Others

Om Prakash and Another vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others