Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.K. Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari, JJ.
Sursati - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30608 of 2018
Decided On : 22-01-2020
For the Appellant : Ajay Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Devendra Kumar and Pramod Kumar Pandey
Headnote:
National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3 – claim of compensation - payment of compensation – acquisition of land - sale-deed but the payment - Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have set up the case that the Government of India issued two notifications dated 1.12.2014 and 27.11.2015 under Section 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, for widening of National Highway No. 29, by which the aforesaid land was also acquired. The petitioner purchased the land in question on 22.1.2016 after publication of the notification and as such the sale-deed being void ab initio, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation, hence, the representation of the petitioner is of no consequence - Held, Before parting with the case we would like to point but one disturbing feature which has been brought to our notice. On 13-12-2001 a Division Bench dismissed an application containing identical prayers. Even before the ink was dry on the judgment, by the impugned judgment, another Division Bench took a diametrically opposite view. It is not that the earlier decision was not brought to the notice of the subsequent Division Bench hearing the subsequent applications. In fact, a reference has been made by the submissions made by the Commission where this decision was highlighted. Unfortunately, the Division Bench hearing the subsequent applications did not even refer to the conclusions arrived at by the earlier Division Bench. The earlier decision of the Division Bench is binding on a Bench of coordinate strength. If the Bench hearing matters subsequently entertains any doubt about the correctness of the earlier decision, the only course open to it is to refer the matter to a larger Bench – Held, We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court which has delivered the impugned judgment being a coordinate Bench could not have taken a view different from that taken by the earlier Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha v. Hon'ble Gauhati High Court [(1988) 1 Gau LR 6]. If the latter Bench wanted to take a view different than that taken by the earlier Bench, the proper course for them would have been to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We have perused the reasons given by the learned Judges for not referring the matter to a larger Bench. We are not satisfied that the said reasons justified their deciding the matter and not referring it to the larger Bench. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the matter of inter se seniority of the Judicial Officers Impleaded as respondents in the writ petition – petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Devendra Kumar, learned Counsel for National Highways Authority of India, Respondent No. 6.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following main reliefs:
"(A) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and directing them (specially respondent No. 3 and 5) to decide the claim of the petitioner regarding to ensure the payment of compensation with respect of Arazi No. 535 area 0.0580 hectare which is acquisition the land of the petitioner.
(B) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and directing them to decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated period, which is pending before the respondent No. 3 and 5 since 24th February, 2018."
3. Facts of the case are that one Smt. Ram Dulari widow of late Pataru son of Sugriv executed a sale-deed dated 21.1.2016 in favour of petitioner for an area of 0.430 hectare out of 0.05804 hectare of gata No. 535 situated in Mauja Pirthipur, Pargana Pachotar, District Ghazipur. On the basis of the said sale-deed the petitioner's name was recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue records on 11.3.2016. Later on, the petitioner acquired knowledge that the land of gala No. 535, purchased by her had already been acquired vide notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. In the notification annexed as Annexure 3 the name of the original land holder was mentioned in Column 34. The petitioner filed many applications for correction of her name in place of the name of transferor and for payment of compensation for the acquired land to the petitioner in view of the sale-deed but the payment has yet not been made.
4. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have set up the case that the Government of India issued two notifications dated 1.12.2014 and 27.11.2015 under Section 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, for widening of National Highway No. 29, by which the aforesaid land was also acquired. The petitioner purchased the land in question on 22.1.2016 after publication of the notification and as such the sale-deed being void ab initio, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation, hence, the representation of the petitioner is of no consequence.
5. The Project Director National Highways district Gorakhpur has taken a stand that the role of the National Highways Authority of India in respect of land acquisition is limited to the depositing of the awarded amount of compensation with the competent authority. It has also taken a stand that the petitioner's sale-deed dated 21.1.2016 is illegal and it is for the competent authority to act according to law.
6. Smt. Ram Dulari, the petitioner's transferor Respondent No. 7, having died during pendency of the writ petition, was substituted by her grandson Respondent No. 7/1 who has stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation of the acquired land which was transferred to the petitioner and for payment of such compensation to the petitioner he has no objection.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner having purchased the land from its tenure holder, may be after the notification under Section 3D of the Act 1956, is entitled for payment of compensation which is being denied illegally by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. He has submitted that the subsequent purchaser has also a right to receive compensation of the acquired land on the strength of the vendor's title. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Nath Singh Yadav v. Union of India decided on 16.1.2018 reported in 2018(2) ADJ 768.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Devendra Kumar learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 have submitted that the su
