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

2014 Supreme(All) 376

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ.
MOTI LAL GOEL AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 1506 and 1856 of 2014, decided on 14th February, 2014)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Siddhartha Varma and Mahendra Pratap for the Petitioners; C.S.C., Bal Krishna, Mahendra Pratap and R.B. Yadav for the Respondents.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Notification—Acquisition of property—Right of subsequent purchaser to challenge notification—The person who had purchased the property subsequent to the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, had no right to challenge notification and consequences thereof—He would be entitled only to claim and receive compensation. [Paras 23 to 26]

       Result; Petitions Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddhartha Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 i.e. Ghaziabad Development Authority and Sri Bal Krishna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. The writ petition is being finally disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, at the admission stage itself. Since questions of law and fact involved in these two writ petitions are identical and as such they have been connected and heard together and are decided by a common order.

3. In the Writ Petition No. 1506 of 2014, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :

“a. To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 3.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents that they may exclude plot No. 89 area 1 Bigha 6 Biswa and plot No. 90 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa, situate in Village Hasanpur Bhowapur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, from the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 16.8.1988 and 14.10.1988 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition), as they had lapsed in respect of plot No. 89 area 1 Bigha 6 Biswa and plot No. 90 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa situate in village Hasanpur Bhowapur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad.

b. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the ownership and possession of the petitioners over plot No. 89 area 1 Bigha 6 Biswa and plot No. 90 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa, situate in village Hasanpur Bhowapur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad.

c. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 that if it considers that the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 16.8.1988 and 14.10.1988 respectively (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to this writ petition) continues then as per its own letter dated 5.10.2012 (Annexure No. 11 to this writ petition) and the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, dated 23.10.2008 and 31.12.2013 and the Government Orders dated 16.2.2009, 29.7.2013 and 5.8.2013 and other relevant documents, which are collectively annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this writ petition, to withdraw the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 16.8.1988 and 14.10.1988, respectively concerning the plot No. 89 area 1 Bigha 6 Biswa and plot No. 90 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa, situate in Village Hasanpur Bhowapur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, as is permissible under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act within the period specified by this Hon’ble Court.

d. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

e. Award cost of petition to petitioners.”

4. By an amendment application prayer ‘A’ has been substituted by following prayer ‘A’. The same is given below as under :

“A. To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 3.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents that they may exclude plot No. 89 area 1 Bigha 6 Biswa and plot No. 90 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa, situate in Village Hasanpur Bhowapur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, from the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 16.8.1988 and 14.10.1988 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition), as they had lapsed in respect of plot No. 89 area 1 Bigha 6 Biswa and plot No. 90 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa situate in village Hasanpur













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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