Amarej Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33665-DB

Court No. - 9

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5492 of 2025

Petitioner :- Amarej Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Pathak,Prashant Kumar Srivastava

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:

¶8

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to restore/defreeze the account of the petitioner bearing Account No. 36360100011802 forthwith and permit the petitioner to run/operate the said account, in the interest of justice."

¶9

There is an agreement between the parties that the similar petitions have been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench and one of such similar order has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.

¶10

This Court has gone through the Annexure No. 6 which an order dated 01.05.2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench. The relevant extract of the order dated 01.05.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:

¶11

"3. After arguing the matter at some length, the Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the case at hand and the issue involved is squarely covered by our judgment dated 10.01.2025 passed in Writ C No.9698 of 2024, which reads as under:-

¶12

"1. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Abhishek Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 and Shri Avadhesh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6.

¶13

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties what comes out is that after the competent authority had determined the compensation payable to the land owners an application for correction of the said order/award was filed by the National Highway Authority of India before the Collector under Section 33 of

¶14

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. During pendency of the said application an order was passed on 26.09.2018 by the Collector, who happens to be the Statutory Arbitrator under the National Highway Authority Act, 1956, to the Bank, for freezing the bank account of the petitioner on the allegation that the excess compensation has been paid, however, the said application under Section 33 came to be dismissed on 18.08.2021, as, informed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Manish Mishra and is annexed at Page 37 of the writ petition.

¶15

3. On being asked as to whether there is any order wherein there may be a finding that excess compensation has been paid to the petitioner or deposited in his bank account learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Collector fairly submitted that as far as his clients are concerned there is no such order.

¶16

4. The National Highway Authority of India has filed an application for setting-aside the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Collector under Section 33, under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, wherein, there is no interim order for freezing the bank account of the petitioner.

¶17

5. When we confronted Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the Bank he submitted that vide order dated 26.09.2018 of the Statutory Arbitrator i.e. the Collector, the account of the petitioner had been freezed and thereafter, no order for unfreezing the account has been passed.

¶18

6. The net result is that there is no order determining that excess compensation has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has already withdrawn Rs.1,10,00,000/- out of about Rs.1,14,00,000/which was deposited as compensation in his bank account with the opposite party- Bank when his father was alive, as, it was joint account at that time.

¶19

7. On being confronted learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner, therefore, obviously there is no action by the Investigating Officer under the erstwhile Cr.P.C. or the new B.N.S.S. for freezing the bank account nor has any been placed before us nor it is the case of the Bank' counsel that any such communication has been received.

¶20

8. We are, therefore, surprised as to how the bank account of the petitioner continues to be freezed. It appears that it is only on account of non communication of unfreezing order by the Collector even after rejection of the application under Section 33 on 18.08.2021. As, there is no determination by any authority or Court that excess compensation has been paid to the petitioner, as yet, therefore, we see no reason for freezing the bank account of the petitioner. We, accordingly, direct the opposite party no. 6-Bank to de-freeze the bank account and allow the petitioner to operate the same subject to the condition that if, in future, if such determination takes place that excess compensation has been paid, then, process as may be prescribed in law can be resorted to for recovery of the excess amount or for taking such other action as

¶21

may be permissible in law.

¶22

9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of."

¶23

The instant writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above quoted order.

¶24

[Shree Prakash Singh,J.] [Sangeeta Chandra,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 30.5.2025 kkv/

¶26

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

Amarej Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarej Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Vashishth Verma Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

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