Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority Raebareli and Another Vs Dharam Pal Tyagi and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39786-DB

Court No. - 9

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 89 of 2024

Applicant :- Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority Raebareli And Another Opposite Party :- Dharam Pal Tyagi And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rajesh Chandra Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

We have heard Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, for the review-applicant/Raebareli Development Authority and also Sri Rajesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/Dharam Pal Tyagi.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Raebareli Development Authority that the State of U.P. (Gram Sabha) was the owner of Gata No. 1044 situated in village Ahmadpur, Tehil Sadar, District Raebareli and since it was recorded as 'Banjar' belonging to Gram Sabha, there was no proposal to acquire the same, as the land was resumed by the State under Section 117 of the UPZA & LR Act. The petitioner herein filed a writ petition on misleading facts saying that his name is recorded in the revenue records as the owner of Gata No. 1044 for which no acquisition has taken place, yet the land has been taken over by the Raebareli Development Authority and plotting has been done thereon and allotment had been made to several persons under the Scheme of 'Indira Nagar Vistar Yojna' for Raebareli City.

¶8

This Court took into account the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the Raebareli Development Authority, wherein it had been stated that the land of Gata No. 1044 was in possession of Raebareli Development Authority since the time of acquisition proceedings for the surrounding land and that the writ-petitioner-Dharam Pal Tyagi was not given the compensation and the RDA has also done plotting thereon and sold it to allottees as well. The Court, therefore, expressed its opinion that the land is in possession of the RDA and since no acquisition for the same land was undertaken by the RDA, it would be appropriate for the Court to direct the RDA to treat the land in its possession of Gata No. 1044 to have been acquired under the new Act of 2013 and compensation be

¶9

paid to the petitioner under the new Act of 2013.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for RDA that the Raebareli Development Authority has now been informed that the State of U.P. has filed a correction application for correction of the revenue records before the SDM (judicial) which is pending, saying that the decree, on which the petitioner relies for claiming the land to be its own, is a doubtful decree as no record of the same could be found in the court's records. The State of U.P. has also filed a Original Suit No. 196 of 2025 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Raebareli, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, wherein it has been stated by the State of U.P. that the land belonged to 'Banjar Khata' of Gaon Sabha and there was no need for acquiring the same and the decree dated 02.01.1987/16.01.1987, relied upon by the petitionerDharam Pal Tyagi, is a doubtful document and declaration regarding such forged document, be issued by the civil court and permanent injunction be also issued. In the original Suit a mention has also been made of the application moved for correction of the revenue records which is pending before the SDM (judicial) by the State of U.P.

¶11

The learned counsel for the review-applicant has pointed out that the Raebareli Development Authority has to pay the compensation to the petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court for which the review has been prayed for, but in case the contention of the State of U.P., made in its application for correction of revenue record pending before the SMD (judicial), is accepted and the Original Suit No. 196 of 2025 is also allowed, then great harm would be caused to the public exchequer/RDA in giving compensation to the writ-petitioner-Dharam Pal Tyagi.

¶12

We find that the writ petition was allowed only on the basis of affidavit exchanged between the Raebareli Development Authority and Dharam Pal Tyagi, the writpetitioner. The State of U.P. had not filed any counter affidavit in Writ-C No. 22885 of 2020. Without there being any submission made by the State of U.P. regarding its ownership of the land of 'Banjar Khata' of Gaon Sabha, the writ petition was decided on incomplete facts.

¶13

Accordingly, the order dated 04.07.2024 is hereby recalled and the Writ C-No. 22885 of 2020 is restored to its original number. Let it be placed before the appropriate

¶14

Court.

¶15

The State of U.P. is directed to file its counter affidavit in Writ-C No. 22885 of 2020, within three weeks that is, latest by 18th August, 2025.

¶16

The present review application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶17

[Shree Prakash Singh,J.] [Sangeeta Chandra,J.] Order Date :- 11.7.2025 kkv/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority Raebareli and Another v. Dharam Pal Tyagi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority Raebareli and Another v. Dharam Pal Tyagi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Heera Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Prabhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Mani Ram Vs District Magistrate Amethi and 4 Others

Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority Raebareli and Another vs Dharam Pal Tyagi and Others

State of U.P. Vs Ram Bahadur

Vikas Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.