The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order refusing compensation for alleged land use in a canal project. The court found the petitioner possessed excess land and had no evidence that his specific purchase overlapped with the constructed canal. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed; no compensation allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178863-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33809 of 2024
Petitioner :- Abdul Maroof Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Sharma,Surendra Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The instant petition has been filed challenging an order dated 18.07.2024 passed by District Level Committee deciding the claim of the petitioner for compensation in respect of the land purchased by sale deed dated 27.11.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased an area measuring 0.107 acre of plot no. 18. Over the said land his house is in existence over 74' x 28'. His further case is that entire area of Arazi No. 18M measuring 0.900 acre was utilised by the State respondents for construction of Saryu Canal. His house has also fallen in the area acquired by the State respondents for construction of Saryu Canal. It has caused damage to the walls of his house. The petitioner has claimed compensation @ Rs. 4500/per sq. mtr. from the respondents for having utilised his land in construction of the canal.
3. In compliance of order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Writ - C No. 5168 of 2024 the District Level Committee has decided the claim of the petitioner.
4. The impugned order records that the petitioner had purchased an area measuring 0.057 hectare by sale deed dated 27.11.2019 from
Wajid Ali. The sale deed executed in his favour records that possession of entire land sold to him was handed over to the petitioner at the time of execution of the sale deed. The order further records that the canal was constructed in the year 2000 and over land purchased from Ram Pyare, Gangotri and Mohd. Shami admeasuring 0.793 acres. The date of sale deeds is 13.03.2000, 24.01.2000 and 24.01.2000 respectively. In pursuance of order of the writ court dated 22.02.2024 a three members committee was constituted to carry out site inspection and it found the petitioner to be in possession of 690 sq. mtr., which is in excess of the land purchased by him. The excess area found to be in possession was 0.012 hectare. It has, thus, been concluded that the claim of the petitioner that any part of his land has been utilised for construction of canal, is not evidenced by any material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a demarcation report dated 05.12.2022 given in proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. We have perused the said report. The report only records that the width of canal was found to be 1.95 kari over plot no. 18. Over some part, houses were in existence and some part was found vacant. It does not indicate that any part of the land of the petitioner was utilised for construction of the canal. In fact, the demarcation report and field book were approved by final order dated 25.02.2023 passed in proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner has not challenged the said order and it has attained finality.
6. Concededly, when the canal was constructed in the year 2000, the petitioner was not owner of the subject land. He purchased it 19 years after the construction of the canal. The vendor of the petitioner never raised any objection that the canal was constructed
by utilising any part of his share in plot no. 18. The petitioner was found to be in actual physical possession of land in excess of land purchased by him.
7. Having regard to these facts, we find no illegality in the impugned order.
8. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 14.11.2024 gp
Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Level Committee's decision denying compensation for land utilisation in canal construction was illegal or arbitrary.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation when he purchased the land after the canal was already constructed and possessed excess land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Maroof
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
