Partly allowed

Prabhawati Yadav and 12 Others v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024WRIC/40334/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a claim for compensation regarding land acquisition for road widening. The High Court quashed the impugned order for lack of findings on title and land impact and directed the Committee to decide the matter afresh within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.11.2024 quashed. District Level Committee directed to decide matter afresh.

Prabhawati Yadav and 12 Others vs Union of India and 4… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190351-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

*********

(Sl.No. 62)

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40334 of 2024

¶7

Petitioner :- Prabhawati Yadav And 12 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Khan,Mohd. Mateen Khan

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 6262 of 2024 (Mithai Lal Dubey And 12 Others vs. Union of India And 2 Others), complaining that the respondents seek to acquire their land without any formal proceedings having been undertaken under the provisions of law and also without payment of any compensation. The specific contention of the petitioners in the said writ petition was that the land notified for acquisition for construction of public road fell within 12 meters from the centre of the road. Thereafter, without acquiring any additional land, the respondents intended to widen the road by 22.50 meters on both sides from the centre of the road and at the junction points. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.5.2024, with direction to the District Level Committee to decide the claim of the petitioners in terms of Government Order dated 12.05.2016. In compliance of the said order, a decision has been taken by the Committee on 11.11.2024 and which is impugned herein.

¶11

The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the finding that the petitioners have failed to produce certified copies of documents and the documents do not tally with the records of the department. It has not been stated as to which record does not tally with the record of the department or certified copy of which document was required by the respondents.

¶12

There is no finding in the entire order that the petitioners do not

¶13

have title over the land in respect of which they are claiming compensation or that the land of the petitioners would not be affected by the widening of the road to the extent of 22.50 meters on both sides from centre of the road and therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 is manifestly illegal and is accordingly, quashed.

¶14

The District Level Committee is directed to decide the matter afresh keeping in mind the above observations.

¶15

The adjudication has to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.

¶16

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Kirti

¶18

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

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prabhawati Yadav and 12 Others v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhawati Yadav and 12 Others v. Union of India and 4 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

Similar cases

Kalawati vs State of Up and 3 Others

Akabar Ali vs State of Up and 2 Others

Kripal Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Omkar and 3 Others vs State of U,P, and 2 Others

Mohd Shahnbaj and 9 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others