Disposed

Avinash Chandra Sahu and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024WRIC/14475/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus for compensation for land used for road construction without acquisition and removal of encroachment. The court held that a controlled area does not confer State title and referred compensation calculation to the District Level Committee under the G.O. dated 12 May 2016.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to District Level Committee under G.O. dated 12 May 2016 for calculating compensation payable to petitioners, with hearing.

Avinash Chandra Sahu and 2 Others vs State of Up and 3… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121648-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14475 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Avinash Chandra Sahu And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Karan Yadav,Yadvendra Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for having utilized their land for construction of a road without initiating any proceedings for formal acquisition. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made by them over the land of the petitioners bearing plots no. 220, 221, 222, 225 and 227 situated in village Pure Surdas, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj.

¶8

The petitioners are bhumidhars of the aforesaid plots. Their case is that the respondents had utilized some portion of their land in making a road without their being any formal acquisition of the said land and also without payment of any compensation to them.

¶9

Learned standing counsel has placed on record the instructions received from Executive Engineer, Construction Division-4, PWD, Prayagraj. The stand taken therein is that there already exist a seven meters wide road and keeping in mind the ensuing Kumb Mela, the respondents are widening the road on both sides by 2.75 meters. It is stated that under the provisions of U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945, no building could be constructed in a controlled area without permission of the Collector. It is further stated that the

¶10

widening is being undertaken within the limits of controlled area.

¶11

The controlled area under the provisions of U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 does not imply that the State has title over said land. In the said area, the Authorities under Act get power to regulate the construction activity. As such, merely because widening is being undertaken in controlled area does not mean that the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners even if they had utilized their land.

¶12

Accordingly, we refer the instant matter to the Committee under Government Order dated 12 May 2016 for calculating the compensation amount payable to the petitioners.

¶13

The petitioners will have liberty to file fresh representation within two weeks along with true attested copy of the instant order before respondent No. 2. On receipt of the representation, respondent No. 2 will transmit the same for consideration and decision by District Level Committee in terms of the G.O. dated 12 May 2016 within a period of twelve weeks. The petitioners will be given opportunity of hearing before passing any order.

¶14

7. Disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Mukesh Kr.

¶16

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

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avinash Chandra Sahu and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Chandra Sahu and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mangal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Atilesh Devi vs Union of India and 5 Others

Mr Surendra Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Gayatri Devi vs State of U.P and 4 Others

Ram Milan vs Union of India and 3 Others

Cyfuture India Private Ltd. vs State of Up and 5 Others