Dismissed

Chetman v. State of Up and 6 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024WRIC/17449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that it cannot undertake a factual enquiry to dispute the survey report in a writ petition. The disposal of the claim by the District Magistrate is an administrative exercise. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order without conducting a detailed factual investigation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.03.2018 left undisturbed; petitioner left open to pursue other legal remedies.

Chetman vs State of Up and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128347-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17449 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Chetman Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and for a direction to pay compensation to the petitioner for having acquired his land bearing Gata Nos. 451 and 450 area 2 and 8 decimil respectively situated at village Rudrapur, Post Kusumahi Bazar, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that for purposes of construction of a link road, the State-respondents had acquired the land of the petitioner under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner so far despite repeated representations. The District Magistrate by impugned order has rejected his claim.

¶8

Submission is that the respondents have paid compensation to affected persons of two out of six villages. Compensation to affected persons of four villages was not paid on account of non availability of funds.

¶9

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court with the same grievance in Writ-C No. 16796 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 08.12.2017 directing the District Magistrate to enquire into the

¶10

claim of the petitioner, and thereafter, pass appropriate order. The said direction was issued in view of the stand taken by the Staterespondents before this Court that a survey was got conducted and in which it transpired that no part of the land of the petitioner was taken over for widening of the road and the entire area belonging to him was in his possession. The order also records that although proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated for acquisition of the subject land but it had lapsed on account of non deposition of compensation with the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶11

The District Magistrate in the impugned order which has been placed on record by learned standing counsel in compliance of our order dated 23.07.2024 has recorded that a joint survey team was constituted by order dated 26.02.2018. It comprised of the SDM, Chauri Chaura, Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Building), PWD, Gorakhpur and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Gorakhpur. It submitted its inspection report dated 03.08.2018. According to the report, plot no. 701 was carved out from old plot no. 450. The report mentions that no part of the land of the petitioner was utilized in construction of the road. The road had been constructed over Araji Nos. 771, 772, 773 and 774 which are recorded as 'Sadak' and 'Sadak Patri' in the revenue records. The entire area owned by the petitioner was found to be in possession as per revenue records.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to dispute the correctness of the survey report but there is no material before us which may go to show that the survey report is incorrect. Moreover, for examining the said aspect, a factual enquiry would be required which we are not inclined to undertake in exercise of

¶13

power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶14

The disposal of the claim of the petitioner by the District Magistrate is in exercise of administrative power and after holding an enquiry in a summary manner. It does not prevent the petitioner from establishing his claim by taking recourse to other legal measures. Therefore, without interfering with the impugned order, we leave it open to the petitioner to take such other remedy as may be advised. In that event, all pleas and contentions will remain open.

¶15

8. Disposed of , accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Mukesh Kr.

¶17

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

¶18

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

Chetman v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetman v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Triveni Dutt vs Dhirendra Kumar

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

Mahendra Kumar vs State of Up and 5 Others

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs Union of India and 3 Others

Omwati Devi and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Amar Pal Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others