Ram Adhar Patel vs Union of India and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ram Adhar Patel vs Union of India and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No immediate restoration or compensation ordered; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation on his claim before respondent no. 3 within two weeks with attested copy of the order; respondent no. 3 to refer the claim to the District Level Committee (G.O. dated 12.5.2016), which is to decide it within twelve weeks after notice, hearing and site survey.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents, who are allegedly in possession of 678 sq. meters of Plot No. 469 although the acquisition notification covered only 0.0273 hectare of that plot, must restore the petitioner's unacquired land (claimed as 405 sq. meters) or pay compensation for it under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. +1 more

Court's answer

The District Level Committee is to decide the petitioner's claim within twelve weeks, after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 4, and after getting the site surveyed.

Ratio / Principle

In the opinion of this Court, the interest of justice would be served by referring the petitioner's claim to the Committee envisaged under G.O. dated 12.5.2016.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation in relation to his claim before respondent no. 3 within two weeks, along with a true attested copy of the instant order.ratio¶10
On receipt of such fresh representation, respondent no. 3 will refer the petitioner's claim for decision by the District Level Committee.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition — National Highways Act, 1956 — notification dated 4.1.2019 under Section 3-A followed by notification under Section 3-D and award dated 24.10.2019 covered only 0.0273 hectare of Plot No. 469 (Khata No. 00224, Village Bhadri, Pargana Mirzapur Chowraha, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj), yet respondents allegedly possessed 678 sq. meters of the plot; petitioner sought mandamus to restore 405 sq. meters of unacquired land or pay market-rate compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Court did not itself adjudicate entitlement; disposed of the petition, giving liberty to move respondent no. 3 within two weeks, whose reference was to be decided by the District Level Committee under G.O. dated 12.5.2016 within twelve weeks after notice, hearing and site survey.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8511-DB

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33309 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Adhar Patel Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ananya Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal,G.A.,Mahendra Pratap,Sudarshan Singh

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

1. Heard Ms. Ananya Shukla for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Chandra Shukla, holding brief of Sri R.K. Jaiswal on behalf of respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no. 2.

The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-Authority to restore possession of unacquired land of the petitioner, admeasuring 405 sq meters of Khata No. 00224, Gata No. 469, admeasuring 0.1020 hectare, Village Bhadri, Pargana Mirzapur Chowraha, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj, or in the alternative, pay compensation for the said area as per provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 at the prevalent market rate.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is owner of Khata No. 00224, Gata No. 469, admeasuring 0.1020 hectare, Village Bhadri, Pargana Mirzapur Chowraha, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj. Copy of khatauni has been filed in support of the said plea. The Ministry of Road Transport and National Highways issued a notification on 4.1.2019 under Section 3-A for acquisition of the subject land, along with other lands under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. It was followed by notification

under Section 3-D and also an award dated 24.10.2019. In the said notification, only an area measuring 0.0273 hectare of Plot No. 469 is covered. However, in the garb of acquisition of the said area, the respondents are in possession of 678 sq. meters of Plot No. 469.

4. The petitioner places reliance on a report of Lekhpal and Tehsildar submitted in September, 2019 in support of his aforesaid plea.

5. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a communication dated 2.6.2021 by competent authority to respondent no. 4 stating that the petitioner has made claim for payment of compensation for the excess land and in case any excess land is required by the Department, the same may be acquired as per provisions of G.O. dated 19.3.2015.

6. Respondent no. 4 has filed counter affidavit and in paragraph no. 12 thereof, the stand taken is that the plea of the petitioner relating to utilization of excess area is required to be ascertained by a spot inspection. On account of Kumbh Mela, the same is not possible at the moment. It is stated that after end of Kumbh Mela, a spot inspection would be made and thereafter in case any excess area is found to have been utilized, the respondents will follow the guidelines laid down in the Circular dated 15.3.2016.

7. Sri Prakash Chandra Shukla, holding brief of Sri R.K. Jaiswal, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4, submits that after survey, the claim of the petitioner shall be ascertained.

8. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the State respondents, submits that the claim of the petitioner would fall within the purview of G.O. dated 12.5.2016 and is required to be determined by District Level Committee.

In our opinion, interest of justice would be served in case the claim of the petitioner is referred to the Committee envisaged under G.O. dated 12.5.2016.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation in relation to his claim before respondent no. 3 within two weeks from today, along with true attested copy of the instant order. Respondent no. 3, in such an event, will refer the same for decision by the District Level Committee. The District Level Committee will decide the claim within twelve weeks, after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and also after getting the site surveyed.

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

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Jaideep/-

Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad