Deepak Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024WRIC/9698/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged freezing of his bank account by District Magistrate during pendency of arbitration award appeal regarding land acquisition compensation. Court found no statutory authority for freeze. Directed bank to allow encashment of deposited balance and listed case.

What did the court decide?

Directed that amount deposited by petitioner beyond compensation received be allowed to be encashed; case listed for 11.12.2024.

Deepak Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9698 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Pathak,Avdhesh Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

There appears to be a dispute between the petitioner and N.H.A.I. as regards the quantum of compensation paid for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner. The arbitral proceedings are stated to have concluded giving rise to an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1996’), which is pending. It is on account of pendency of the proceedings as to the quantum of compensation, payable to the petitioner, that a communication was forwarded to the Bank, i.e. opp. party No. 6, for freezing the account number of the present petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 17 has stated that he has deposited more money than what was received out of the quantum of compensation payable to him. Insofar as the amount of compensation, reimbursed to the petitioner is concerned, same has been done after the award was rendered by the competent authority.

¶9

It appears that an application for correction of the award was made by the N.H.A.I., which has been rejected. Thereafter, N.H.A.I. has challenged the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the competent authority for correction of the award under Section 34 of the Act 1996, which is pending.

¶10

We fail to understand as to under what authority has the District Magistrate forwarded a communication to the Bank for freezing the petitioner’s account. This power is not traceable in the statute and there is no explanation offered before us in this regard.

¶11

Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the communication to the Bank proceeds on the basis of an order dated 26.09.2018, which has not been filed alongwith the writ petition. He seeks two days’ time to place a copy of the

¶12

same before us, so that the arguments put forth and the consequential effect of any such order may be appreciated and necessary order passed in the light of the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶13

List this case on 11.12.2024 as fresh .

¶14

We, however, clarify that any amount deposited by the petitioner beyond what has been received in his account against the compensation towards land, be allowed to be encashed by the petitioner through the appropriate mechanism of operating the account, till the next date of listing.

¶15

Personal appearance of the officer, as directed earlier, is exempted, unless called for.

¶16

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. ) ( Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. )

¶17

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 A.Nigam

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deepak Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Lucknow Vs Madhu Kapoor

Kuldeep Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Lko. and 2 Others

Chandra Pratap Tiwari Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Petroleum and Gas, New Delhi and Others

M/S Rathi Steel and Power Ltd. Furnace Div. Thru Director Vs State of U.P. through Prin.Secy. Energy and Ors.

M/S Rathi Steel and Power Ltd.Ghaziabad Thru Director and Anr. Vs U.P.Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.Lko.Thru DIRECTORandORS

M/S Rathi Steel and Power Ltd.Furnace Div.Thru. Its Director Vs Directorate of Electrical Safety U.P. Thru. Director and Ors.