Back
2016 Supreme(All) 4104
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, Sunita Agarwal, JJ.
Devi Singh and 4 Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Writ C No. 38698 of 2012 and Writ C No. 44207 of 2015
Decided On : 05-09-2016
For the Petitioner:- Shiv Kant Mishra,Siddharth Verma
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav, Akshey Sinha, Y.K. Sinha
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compensation settlement under the Karar Niyamawali, 1997, did not cover the disputed plot, and the petitioners could seek recourse to law if they were not satisfied with the award.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Disputed Plot - Section 4(1)/17, Section 6 - Land Acquisition Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought 1/5th share in a disputed plot acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. They challenged the notifications and lease deed related to the plot, claiming that no award had been made for the plot and that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had refused to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claim was based on a misconception and a misreading of the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It noted that compensation had been settled under the Uttar Pradesh Bhu Arjan (Pratikar Ki Awdharna Evam Abhinirnay Ki Ghoshna) Karar Niyamawali, 1997, and that the disputed plot was not covered by the Karar Niyamawali.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to a share in the disputed plot and whether the award had been made for the plot.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' claim was misconceived and that the disputed plot was not covered by the compensation settlement under the Karar Niyamawali. It also emphasized that the petitioners could seek recourse to law if they were not satisfied with the award.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court advised the petitioners to seek recourse to law if they were not satisfied with the award.
Arun Tandon and Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,JJ.
Petitioners before this Court, who are three in number in Writ Petition No. 44207 of 2016 and five in number in Writ Petition No.3698 of 2010 claim 1/5th share in their individual capacity in plot no. 103/1M, area 0.2530 hectare, have filed these two writ petitions for quashing of the notification no. 1022/77-4-2005-16 N-2002 Lucknow dated 12.4.2005 made under Section 4(1)/17 of the Land Acquisition Act and notification no.4464/77-4-2006-16 N-2002 Lucknow dated 27.7.2006 issued under Section 6 of the same Act further for quashing of the lease deed dated 31.8.2010 executed by NOIDA in favour of respondent no.5 and a for a direction to not to interfere with the construction over the part of the said plot.
The facts leading to the present writ petitions are as follows:
2. The plots in dispute namely plot no. 103/1M, area 0.2530 hectare., was subject matter of notification issued under Section 4(1)/17 of the Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 27.7.2006 issued under Section 6 of the same Act. Possession of the land was taken on 16.10.2006 and an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 27.7.2011, a copy of the complete award is enclosed as page-43, 110 and 200 of the Writ Petition No. 44207 of 2015 (Rambhool and others vs. State of U.P. and others).
3. It is the case of the petitioners that no award has been made in respect of plot no. 103/1M area 0.2530 hectare till date. The proceedings have, therefore, elapsed after expiry of two years from the date of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. It is vehemently contended before us that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as SLAO) namely the Additional District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in his award while disposing of the objections raised by the petitioners recorded as Apatti No. 38, has specifically refused to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act, 1894in respect of the aforesaid plot, and, therefore, there has been no award in respect of the said acquired land. It is then stated that the petitioner had specifically contended that no award has been made in respect of the said plot which fact has not been converted and, therefore, the stands taken by the petitioners must be accepted.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. In our opinion, the stand taken by the petitioners is wholly misconceived and based on complete misleading of the award made by the SLAO dated 27.7.2011. From the reading of the complete award, it is apparent that qua the land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, certain tenure holders including the petitioners had agreed for receiving compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Bhu Arjan (Pratikar Ki Awdharna Evam Abhinirnay Ki Ghoshna) Karar Niyamawali, 1997. The total area covered by the Karar Niyamawali is disclosed as 439.323 hectare. The SLAO vide award dated 27.7.2011 has first dealt with the objection raised by the tenure holders their heirs in respect of their share.
6. Item No. 34 was the objection raised by the petitioners of both the writ petitions in respect of 1/5th share in plot no. 103/1M area 0.2530 hectare. The learned SLAO specifically noticed that initially compensation under the under the Karar Niyamawali was paid to one Rampal, son of Balwant to the tune of Rs. 26,85,456/-. However, on 1/5th share being claimed by one Dilkhush alias Dulaee Ram, this money has been recovered from Rampal.
7. It has been then recorded that in respect of nine plots including plot no. 103/1M area 0.2530 hectare, there is a dispute between Rampal and Bishan both sons of Balwant and since such dispute of apportionment is to be examined under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, reference has been made in the matter of apportionment to the learned District Judge. The order further records that so far as the plot no.103/1M area 0.2530 hectare is concerned, the same is
