Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. KATJU,.
MOEL JOSHWA - Appellant
Versus
GORAKHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GORAKHPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 49594 Of 2000
Decided On : 09/23/2002
Land Acquisition - Transfer of Possession - Land Acquisition Act, S. 4, S. 6 - Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 448 - C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary, (1997) 2 SCC 627 - State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, (1997) 5 SCC 432 : (AIR 1997 SC 2703
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to transfer and sell plots in Gorakhpur, which were acquired by the Gorakhpur Development Authority (GDA) and subsequently transferred to another party. The petitioner claimed continued possession based on an interim order in a related case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim of continued possession was not supported by the Advocate Commissioner's report, which stated there was no house on the disputed plot. The GDA had acquired the land, awarded compensation, and transferred possession to other parties, making the petitioner's claim invalid.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had a valid claim to the plots after the GDA's acquisition and transfer of possession to other parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents to establish that once land is acquired and compensation awarded, the original owner has no say in its utilization or allocation. The court also emphasized that the absence of the petitioner's house on the disputed plot invalidated their claim.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim, and no costs were awarded.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 25-7-2000 Annexure-10 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 2 and for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1, Gorakhpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the gda) to transfer and sell plots No. 644, 645 and 646 in Basharatpur, Gorakhpur to the petitioner at the rates already determined and to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from transferring the plots to the respondents 3 to 5.
( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) IT has been alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the aforementioned plots were purchased by the petitioner on 16-9-1968 vide sale deed Annexure-1 to the writ petition. These plots lie in the city of Gorakhpur and it is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioners house is situate thereon alongwith a boundary wall.
( 4 ) A notification dated 7-9-1983 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and published in the official gazette on 20-1-1984 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter a notification under S. 6 was issued on 20-1-1987 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The validity of these notifications has been challenged in writ petition No. 9409 of 1987 which has also been decided today alongwith this writ petition. We have dismissed writ petition No. 9409 of 1987 today.
( 5 ) IN view of the interim order passed in writ petition No. 9409 of 1987 the petitioner claims that he continued in possession over the aforesaid plots No. 644, 645 and 646. However, it has been alleged by the respondents that writ petition No. 9409 of 1987 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20-1-2000 by this Court and Special Land Acquisition Officer was intimated by the G. D. A. about the dismissal of the writ petition and hence the Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 22-4-2000 regarding plots No. 644, 645 and 646 and the possession was delivered to the G. D. A. on 22-4-2000. Subsequently, on 25-4-2000 writ petition No. 9409 of 1987 was restored but before the restoration order was passed the award had been delivered and the possession had been taken by the G. D. A. Thereafter on 25-7-2000 G. D. A. transferred the land in favour of the respondent No. 5.
( 6 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that an application dated 26-6-2000 was filed by two persons, namely, Sadik Ali and Shyam Kumar Singh of Rapti Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Bashratpur, Gorakhpur before the Vice Chairman of the G. D. A. stating that they were prepared to purchase the aforesaid plots at the price fixed by the Authority. True copies of the application and affidavit are Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the writ petition that he has never signed those affidavits and that it is forged and he has not given any consent for transfer. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition it is stated that without verifying the correctness of the aforesaid affidavits from the petitioner, the G. D. A. has allotted the plots in favour of respondent No. 5 by order dated 25-7-2000 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the G. D. A. never verified the genuineness of the aforesaid affidavits which are forged and fictitious. It is alleged that the petitioner never consented to any sale by the G. D. A. in favour of the respondents 3 and 4.
( 7 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 another counter affidavit by respondent No. 4 on behalf of the respondents 5 and 3. We have perused the same.
( 8 ) IN this case on 2-8-2001 a Division Bench of this court passed an interim order, the relevant part of which is as follows:"the land in question has been acquired. In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that his house is existing on the land in question. Sri Shyam Singh has filed counter affidavit and in para 39 of the counter affidavit it is denied that there is any res
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
