SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 203

2006(3) Supreme 10
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
B.P. Singh and Altamas Kabir, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Kashi Prasad Dwivedi & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1508 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2066-2068 of 2005)
Decided on 6-3-2006
Advocates appeared
For the Appellants : Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Abhishek Chaudhary, Kamlendra Mishra and Jatinder K. Bhatia, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Anil Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh, Mrs. Mukti Singh and Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Art. 226—Writ directing State-appellant to pay compensation to writ petitioners for land said to have been acquired by the State—State had failed to file counter affidavit in writ—Plea that documents filed however showed that land in question had been sold by grandfather of writ petitioner in favour of State by registered sale deed—Matter needed to be remitted to High Court for reconsideration. (Paras 2 & 3)

Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—We have heard counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh has challenged the order of the High Court whereby the High Court directed the State to pay compensation to the writ petitioners for the lands said to have been acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Counsel for the appellants submits that though the Sate authorities ought to have taken prompt steps and ought to have filed counter affidavit refuting the claim made in the writ petition which they failed to do, the fact remains that the State has brought on record documents in the recall application which will show that the lands in question were sold to the State by the grandfather of the writ petitioner many years ago and in view of the registered deed of sale in favour of the State, the respondents cannot claim any right, title or interest in the property in question. They are not entitled to any compensation for the acquisition of the lands which belong to the State.

3. We do not wish to express any opinion in the matter, but having regard to the fact that in a large number of cases this problem has been noticed, we remit the matter to the High Court to reconsider the same after giving an opportunity to the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a detailed counter affidavit.

4. We so direct, in the interest of justice and in public interest. If the plea of the State of U.P. is found to be justified, there can be no question of giving any compensation to persons like the respondents herein. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and allow this appeal. The matter is remitted to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the above terms.

No order as to the costs.

Appeal allowed accordingly.

***************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top