Disposed¶13

Babu v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025WRIC/39912/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition objections; excess area possession; demarcation liberty; naali acquisition and irrigation; Gata No. 1440; 0.014/0.040 hectare acquired; compensation less than circle rate; arbitration under Section 3-G(5) National Highways Act 1956; District Magistrate Mahoba as Arbitrator; chak marg acquisition; ingress and egress; 7.5 metre service road; writ petition disposed; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Division Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:10772-DB; WRIT - C No. 39912 of 2024; decided 22.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

There is no evidence on record that any excess area was taken over by the respondents in garb of the acquisition proceedings, so the Court declined to issue any direction on that plea, while leaving the petitioner open to get his holding demarcated in appropriate proceedings, if so advised. ¶10

Babu vs State of Up and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents took possession of excess area compared to the area actually acquired. +3 more

¶2

Court's answer

¶10

Ratio / Principle

On the claim for enhancement of compensation, the petitioner is left open to avail the remedy of arbitration provided under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, if so advised.

¶11

Key takeaways

The other pleas regarding difficulty in irrigating the field and access (ingress/egress) to his field are unsustainable in view of the stand taken by the respondents (only 0.014 of 0.040 hectare naali acquired, remainder in existence, and a 7.5 metre service road provided).ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.), Writ - C No. 39912 of 2024 (Babu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others), decided 22.1.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:10772-DB): Writ petition seeking a direction to decide the petitioner's objection dated 11.07.2024 before the Competent Authority in acquisition proceedings, alleging (i) excess area taken over, (ii) acquisition of naali obstructing irrigation, (iii) compensation below circle rate, and (iv) acquisition of chak marg affecting ingress/egress. Held: no evidence of excess taking, hence no direction, with liberty to seek demarcation; the compensation grievance is referable to arbitration under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (District Magistrate, Mahoba designated Arbitrator); the irrigation and access pleas are unsustainable on the respondents' stand that only 0.014 of 0.040 hectare of naali in Gata No. 1440 was acquired and a 7.5 metre service road is provided. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10772-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39912 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Babu Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Tripathi,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Govind Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to decide the objection of the petitioner dated 11.07.2024.

¶7

In the said objection filed by the petitioner before Competent Authority, he has alleged that the respondents are taking possession of excess area as compared to the area actually acquired. It is also alleged that the respondents have also acquired naali which would create problem for the petitioner in irrigation of his fields. It has further been alleged that the compensation determined for the acquired area is less than the circle rate. He further states that the respondents have acquired the chak marg and it would also result in difficulty in ingress and egress to the plot of the petitioner.

¶8

The Competent Authority has submitted written instructions dated 20 January 2025. In the written instructions, it is stated that from Gata No. 1440 area 0.040 hectare recorded as naali, small part i.e. 0.014 hectare was acquired and the remaining part is still in existence and therefore, the plea that there would be difficulty in irrigating the fields is not correct. It has further been stated that under the proposed project, which is to be implemented over

¶9

acquired land, a service road of width 7.5 meters has been provided. In respect of the plea that adequate compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, it is stated that under Section 3-G(5), District Magistrate, Mahoba has been designated as Arbitrator to decide such dispute. It is open to the petitioner to raise the said dispute before the Arbitrator.

¶10

As there is no evidence on record that any excess area has been taken over by the respondents in garb of the acquisition proceedings and therefore, we decline to issue any direction in respect of the said plea. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to get his holding demarcated in appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

¶11

In respect of claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation, we again leave it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of arbitration provided under Section 3-G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956, if so advised.

¶12

Other pleas regarding difficulty in irrigating the field/access to his field are unsustainable in view of the stand taken by the respondents.

¶13

The petition stands disposed of , accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Mukesh Kr.

¶15

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

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babu v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Pal and 9 Others vs Union of India and 5 Others

Mohd. Shakeel and 160 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

M/S Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nadra Iqbal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Chandra Kala Devi vs National Highways Authority of India through Its Project Director and 2 Others

Badal Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others