Disposed

Jayvati and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025WRIC/3257/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking refund of compensation and return of land. It directed the petitioners to deposit received compensation, upon which the respondent must return the land and mutate the land records accordingly within four weeks, enforcing a Supreme Court order quashing the acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to deposit compensation; respondent to return land and mutate records within four weeks of deposit.

Jayvati and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21602-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl. No.31)

¶4

Court No. - 21

¶5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3257 of 2025

¶6

Petitioner :- Jayvati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girijesh Kumar Gupta,Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Singh,C.S.C.

¶7

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

¶8

The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Hapur - Pilkhua Vikas Pradhikaran, Hapur (respondent no.5) to accept the refund of compensation amount of Rs. 24,59,225/- and Rs. 14,75,550/respectively from the petitioners and to return the acquired land to the petitioners.

¶9

The case of the petitioners is that the acquisition proceedings for the land belonging to them was quashed by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 66 of 2007 connected with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 67 of 2007. As a result of the same the land is to be returned by the respondents to the land owners upon refund of compensation amount. Notice to the said effect was issued by ADM (LA) to several land owners. The petitioners have filed representation to accept refund but no decision has been taken on the same.

¶10

Sri Krishna Prakash Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh appearing on behalf respondent no.5 does not dispute that land is to be returned to land owners upon refund of the compensation amount. He submits that as soon as the money is returned by the petitioners the Development Authority would return the land to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners is agreeable to the same.

¶11

Considering the same, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners shall deposit the amount received by them as compensation for the subject land and in which event, their land shall be returned to them.

¶12

The respondent shall also mutate the name of the petitioners in place of the Development Authority, to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶13

The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of deposit of the entire amount by the petitioners with respondent no.5.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Ashish Pd.

¶15

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

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jayvati and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayvati and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Ajab Singh and 26 Others vs National Highway Authority of India through Its Project Director Project Implementation Unit- Baghp

Smt. Sangeeta Goel vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Atma Prakash vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Deepali Nigam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Suprita Sales and Services Pvtltd vs State of U.P. and Another

Radha Krishna and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others