Disposed

Smt Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024WRIC/17852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed compensation for plots used for road construction. High Court found factual enquiry was needed and disposed of the writ petition by remitting the matter to the District Level Committee for further proceedings as per Government Order 12.05.2016.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; dispute remitted to District Level Committee to decide compensation claim after survey and hearing.

Smt Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176056-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17852 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Sushila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

1. The instant petition has been fled praying for a direction to the i respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for plot nos. 232, 265, 267, 157 situated at Village Aaspur, Pargana Nagar Purab, Tehsil & District Basti as per provisions of Act No. 30 of 2013. Further prayer is for a direction for payment of compensation at four times the circle rate, as provided under Government Order dated 19.03.2015.

¶7

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is bhumidhar of plot nos. 232, 265, 267, 157 Village Aaspur, Pargana Nagar Purab, Tehsil & District Basti. Copy of the khatauni has been f i led to evidence the same. Further case of the petitioner is that the State respondents constructed moot khat road over plot nos. 265, 232, 244, 269/ 895, 266kha and 267 belonging to her. The petitioner places reliance on a report of Lekhpal dated 01.10.2021 in which it is mentioned that gata no. 265, 267 and 232 recorded in the name of the petitioner had got af f ected by construction of the road. The case of the petitioner is that no formal acquisition has taken place and the respondents have included the lands of the aforesaid plots of the petitioner without any authority of law. She is, therefore, entitled to compensation at four times the circle rate as per Government Order dated 19.03.2015.

¶8

¶9

3. On 23.07.2024, the following order was passed:-

¶10

"1. The instructions furnished by the State-respondents reveal that road has been constructed over Gata Nos. 265, 267 and 232, which admittedly belongs to the petitioner. Although, it is alleged that a chak-road was in existence since long, but no order has been filed to show that any part of aforeasaid gatas had vested in the Gaon Sabha on account of existence of road.

¶11

We grant one more opportunity to the respondents to file evidence, if any, in support of their case and which may negate the claim of the petitioner for compensation.

¶12

Accordingly, we direct respondent no. 3 to file his affidavit and bring on record, material, if any, as may go to show that any part of the land of the petitioner had vested in the State Government or Gaon Sabha or was reserved for public use during consolidation operations.

¶13

Put up this case as fresh on 13.08.2024.

¶14

Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, undertakes to communicate the instant order to respondent no. 3 for due compliance."

¶15

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate has

¶16

fled his af i fi davit and in paragraph-4 it is stated as follows:-

¶17

S. No .	Gata Number	Consolidation Status	Physical Status as per SDO (Revenue) report	PWD	Report
Gat 23.	a Numbers 07.2024	which are m	entioned in	Court	Order dated
1.	232	Made from 384/1	Not on road	•	The widening is carried out
2.	265	Made from 175/1	Not on road		on long existing road embankment
3.	267	Made from 176/2	Not on road	•	Road exists since long
Oth Wri	er Gata Num t Petition	bers which are	mentioned in		back, and is in records at
4.	244	Made from 384/2 - had road; recorded so in CH 41	Part of the road	•	least from 1995 Embankment is flanked by trees, and no tree cutting
5.	269/895	Made from 177/1Mi - had road; recorded so in CH 41	Part of the road		was even planned as can be seen from estimate.
6.	266 Kha	Made from 176/1Mi - had	Part of the road (road	•	The work has been carried

¶18

¶19

		road; recorded so in CH 41	passes through Minjumla number)	out within the limit of the embankment, keeping the
7.	157	Made from 117Mi/118Mi	Not on road	shoulder narrow, or even the pitched surface narrow, subject to the land width available.

¶20

5. The State respondents have fled relevant extracts of CH Form 41 i to prove that part of old plot nos. 384/2, 177/1M, 176/1M were reserved for road in previous consolidation operations. The corresponding new gata numbers are 244, 269/895 and 266 kha. The case taken in the af fi davit is that the road was constructed over the aforesaid plots and it does not afect the land of the f petitioner.

¶21

6. The petitioner has fled a copy of i sajra map to demonstrate that her plots fall in the alignment of the road and have been afected. f

¶22

7. In our opinion, the rival contentions require a factual enquiry and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶23

8. We are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served by referring the dispute to District Level Committee for being decided in terms of Government Order dated 12.05.2016, to which counsel for the parties also do not have any objection.

¶24

9. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation along with true attested copy of the instant order before respondent no. 3 within three weeks from today. On any such representation being made,

¶25

¶26

respondent no. 3 will transmit the same to the Chairperson of the District Level Committee for being decided in terms of Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within next twelve weeks after a proper survey and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her representative and any other person likely to be af f ected thereby.

¶27

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 gp

¶29

¶30

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. 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

Doodhnath vs State of Up and 9 Others

Devendra Nath Agrawal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mansarovar Sehkari Awas Samiti Limited vs State of Up and 3 Others

Sirajuddin and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Doodhnath vs State of Up and 9 Others

Smt Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others