Jay Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16936-DB

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40373 of 2024

Petitioner :- Jay Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

1. The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation for 1/6 share of the petitioner in Gata No. 299, area 1.4610 hectare Village - Wahidpur, Pargana Bilram, Tehsil and District Kasganj, which the respondents have taken for construction of Kasganj Bareilly bypass road.

¶7

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is having 1/6 share in Gata No. 299, area 1.4610 hectare. It was required by respondent no. 4 for construction of Kasganj Bareilly bypass road. At the relevant time, the petitioner was in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 4020 of 2020 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 302 & 506 IPC. The respondents took possession without consent of the petitioner and also without payment of any compensation. According to the petitioner, while he was in jail his wife filed an application dated 02.01.2019 stating that her husband, namely, the petitioner herein, is ready to execute sale deed and for the said purpose he should be granted parole. On 23.02.2019, she filed another application before District Magistrate, Kasganj stating that the Jail Superintendent has declined to release the petitioner on parole for executing sale deed. In the said application, she requested the District Magistrate to direct the Jail Superintendent

¶8

to grant parole to the petitioner to enable him to execute sale deed. Thereafter, it seems that respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 10.01.2019 recommended for grant of parole but ultimately it was not granted and thereafter, the petitioner executed a registered power of attorney dated 10.05.2022 in favour of his wife for execution of sale deed on his behalf.

¶9

3. It is not disputed that the other co-sharers of the petitioner have already executed sale deed in respect of their share in favour of the respondents.

¶10

4. In the written instructions submitted by District Magistrate, Kasganj, it is stated that the valuation of the share of the petitioner was got done and as per the circle rate fixed by District Magistrate, the respondents determined the value as Rs. 1,13,067/- and recommended for payment of compensation at two times the value of share of the petitioner i.e. Rs. 2,26,133/-. The petitioner was repeatedly requested to execute sale deed but the same has not been executed so far. The respondents are ready and willing to obtain sale deed and to pay the value of share of the petitioner in the land.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to execute sale deed at the value determined by the respondents but he should be paid interest on the said amount, as possession of the land was taken by the respondents in the year 2017. However, there is no such pleading in the writ petition.

¶12

6. We, however, are of the view that the petitioner should be paid interest at SBI PLR prevailing during the relevant period from the date possession of the land was taken.

¶13

7. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the petitioner will approach respondent no. 4 for execution of sale

¶14

deed along with true attested copy of the instant order within two weeks from today. The respondent no. 4 will complete the formalities regarding execution of the sale deed and get it registered within next two weeks. The petitioner would be paid consideration for his share in the land, as per determination made by the respondents i.e. Rs. 2,26,133/- along with interest, as noted above, from the date of his dispossession till date of actual payment .

¶15

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 6.2.2025 gp

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jay Singh v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Singh v. State of Up and 3 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

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

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

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

Raj Kumar Gangwar and 17 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pintu Kumar Sonkar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anupam Kumar Moitra vs State of U.P. and Another