Disposed

Ashok Kumar Dubey v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIC/15253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for compensation for two plots partly acquired for highway widening and a speaking order on his representation. Respondents disputed his remaining title; court declined to examine revenue records in writ jurisdiction and directed the Tehsildar to decide the share dispute after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file reply within two weeks; Tehsildar directed to take decision after hearing petitioner and affected persons.

Ashok Kumar Dubey vs State of Up and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115800-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15253 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Surat Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

1. The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of compensation amount to the petitioner for Arazi No. 843-kha, in which the petitioner claims half share and Arazi No. 799, wherein he claims one-third share in Village Kapsethi, Tehsil Raja Talab, District Varanasi and for a direction to respondent no. 2 to pass a speaking order on his representation dated 20.5.2022.

¶7

It is not disputed that the respondents have taken certain land for widening of an existing highway. The petitioner had also executed several sale deeds in respect of other part of his holding and has been paid full compensation therefor. However, in respect of subject land, the case of the petitioner is that he has not been paid any compensation.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has placed on record the instructions received from Executive Engineer, Construction Division - 1, PWD, Varanasi, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner has executed a sale deed of an area measuring 2400 sq. meters to one Umrai Devi, wife of Hori Lal and another sale deed for an area of 600 sq. meters in favour of Gopinath, son of Sankhata and thereafter he is not left with any land in the aforesaid plot.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to dispute the stand of the respondents by showing certain revenue records which we decline to examine in exercise of writ jurisdiction. We find that the petitioner was issued a notice on 22.5.2023 by Tehsildar, Raja Talab, Varanasi, requiring him to present his case before him for resolving the dispute relating to shares in the subject land between the parties. There is no indication in the writ petition as to whether the petitioner has submitted any reply in response to the said notice.

¶10

We therefore leave it open to the petitioner to file his reply, if not already filed, within two weeks and whereafter, the concerned officer shall be under obligation to take decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner and other persons likely to be affected thereby.

¶11

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶12

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Jaideep/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Dubey v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Dubey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Bahadur Bharti vs State of Up and 4 Others

Madhav Prasad Vajpayee vs State of Up and 3 Others

Sanjay Sharma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary (Industrial Development) and 4 Others

Ram Prasad Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Nihor Yadav vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ashish Agarwal vs State of U.P. and 7 Others