Dismissed

Mrs. Satyawati v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Uttarakhand HC3 Mar 2022WPMS/745/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a widow, challenged a recovery certificate regarding excess land acquisition compensation through a writ petition. The Court held that establishing sole ownership or hereditary title is a disputed question of fact unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226 and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Mrs. Satyawati Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 3^RD MARCH DAY OF, 2022

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ K. TIWARI

¶6

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 745 of 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mrs. Satyawati … Petitioner

¶9

(By Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents

¶12

(Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C. and Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5)

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

¶15

(a) Issue an appropriate order, Writ or directions in the nature of Certiorari commanding the Respondents to quash the Impugned Recovery Certificate dated 23.8.2016 (annexed as Annexure-8 with this Writ Petition), in the interest of justice to the Petitioner.

¶16

(b) Issue appropriate order, Writ or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to decide the representations dated 08.08.2016 & 27.8.2016 (annexed as Annexure-5 colly with this Writ Petition) by an speaking order, in the interest of justice to the Petitioner.

¶17

(c) Issue appropriate order, Writ or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.-3 to withdraw the recovery letter dated 04.08.2016 (annexed as

¶18

¶19

Annexure-7 with this Writ Petition), in the interest of justice to the Petitioner.

¶20

2. Petitioner is the widow of Late Yashvir Singh. Yashvir Singh had ancestral property in Manglour, District Haridwar in which he was a co-owner. Part of the said property was acquired for widening of Highway and petitioner received certain amount, as compensation. Subsequently, when other co-owners staked claim for compensation in respect of their share in the acquired property, then an inquiry was made by Special Land Acquisition Officer and it was found that other co-owners were also entitled to part of the amount paid as compensation to petitioner, as their share in the property was also acquired and petitioner wrongly received compensation even in respect of share of other co-owners in the acquired property. The excess amount, paid as compensation to the petitioner, was sought to be recovered from petitioner by issuing a recovery certificate. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

¶21

3. Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was entitled to the entire amount, which was paid as compensation to her, as she was the sole owner of the acquired property. In support of this contention, she referred to certain documents i.e. family settlement, power of attorney, sale deed etc. and submitted that she had acquired title over the entire acquired property through those documents.

¶22

4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, however, is disputed by learned counsels for the respondents, who submitted that petitioner was

¶23

¶24

owner of part of the property, therefore, she was not entitled to entire amount of compensation.

¶25

5. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 have filed their separate counter affidavits in which they have asserted that petitioner wrongly received the entire amount of compensation and they are also entitled to compensation for their share in the acquired property.

¶26

6. Thus, the question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether petitioner is the sole owner of the acquired property or whether share of respondent nos. 4 & 5 was also there in the acquired property, for which they are also entitled for compensation. Thus, the controversy involved in this writ petition boils down to a title dispute.

¶27

7. Petitioner has referred to various transactions in support of her contention that she became sole owner of the acquired property. Whether she acquired title, based on those transactions and to what extent, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

8. In such view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. As such, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum available to her, in law.

¶29

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

¶30

Aswal

Mrs. Satyawati v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Satyawati v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Anjani Rice Mill Vs the Nainital Bank Limited

Shimla Enclae Welfare Society Sewa Having Its Office Vs Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority Dehradun

Govind Ballabh Awasthi Vs Vinay Kumar Bhargarv

Shakuntala Vs Pankaj Kumar Panday

V G R a S S P Services a Proprietorship Firm Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Panchayati Raj Civil Secretariat Dehradun

Committee of Management R S Dhillon Janta Inter College Vs R C Arya