Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Ajay Kumar and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ-C No. 43422 of 2018
Decided On : 11-08-2022
Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20-A, 20-E and 20-F (2) - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 67-A - U.P.Z.A.&.L.R. Act - Section 123 (1) - U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Rule 64 and 68 (2) (f) - Acquisition proceedings – Notification - Declaration of acquisition - Power to acquire land - Maximum area and other conditions of allotment - Whether writ petitioners have right, title and interest in plot as claimed by them and if so, what is the nature of such right - Whether proceedings in respect of the acquisition of Plot included in Notification, under Section 20-A of Act, 1989, but not included in Notification/Declaration under Section 20-E and non declaration of award in respect thereof will result in proceedings having lapsed under Section 20-F (2) of Act, 1989 as claimed by petitioners - Whether resumption proceedings of Plot under Section 59 of Code, 2006, by Commissioner by order is in accordance with law in wake of plot/land having settled in favour of petitioners under Section 67-A of Code, 2006 - Whether higher public purpose will have preference over individual rights as argued by learned counsel for respondents - Court find that petitioners have no right, title or interest in plot as pleaded and the same does not stand settled with them under Section 67-A of Code, 2006. (Para 27)
Finding of the Court : Section 20-A of Act, 1989 reveals that the Central Government under section merely declares its intention to acquire land under the Notification for special railways project. It is merely a proposal. However, recitals of Section 20-E reveals that on publication of the Notification under Section 20-E, land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances - Dedicated Freight Corridor project of railways is certainly a project of national importance. The project has certainly suffered on account of present litigation and on account of status quo order operating since 3.1.2019 – Court find that petitioners have no right, title or interest in plot in village as pleaded and the same does not stand settled with them under Section 67-A of Code, 2006. The house of petitioners is built over plot No. 140M and 139M with major portion lying over plot No. 140M. An area upto 200 square meters with structure thereon could alone be settled with petitioners under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code and not the entire area of 0.0580 hectares (580 square meters) comprised in plot No. 140M and 139M. No right can be said to have accrued to the petitioners in respect of plot No. 139M and 140M in excess of 200 square meters. The respondent Nos. 1 and 7 have already determined the compensation in respect of the dwelling house constructed over plot to the tune of Rs.33,42,507/- which the petitioners are entitled to collect from respondents.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The writ petitioners who claim to have right, title and interest in Arazi/Plot No. 139M having area 0.0140 hectare, situate in Village Pirallipur, Pargana Haveli, Post Chunar, District Mirzapur, have approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to create any interference in their peaceful possession over the said arazi/plot on the ground that the entire proceedings of the acquisition of the plot for special railway project stands lapsed under Section 20-F (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The petitioners have further prayed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.
2. The facts giving rise to the controversy involved in the writ petition, briefly stated, as borne out from the record, are that one Chhavinath, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2, was residing in a double storied house constructed over arazi/plot No. 139 and 140 since the time of his ancestors. The Plot No. 139 and 140 were recorded as “Banjar” under category 5-3 ¼³½ in the revenue records with area 0.1390 hectares and 0.3790 hectares, respectively. It may be stated here that an area of 0.0560 hectares of plot No. 140 was settled in favour of residents of village under Section 123 (1) UPZA&LR Act vide order dated 6.10.1993. Proceedings under Section 122-B of the UPZA&LR Act for eviction of Chhavinath were drawn by the Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha of the village concerned which resulted in an ex-parte order dated 22.5.2008, being passed against Chhavinath. A restoration application was filed by Chhavinath stating his inability to appear in the proceedings whereafter the proceedings were restored after recalling the order dated 22.5.2008. On the restoration of the proceedings and after hearing Chhavinath, the report under Section 122-B UPZA&LR Act was rejected and the Notice 49-A was withdrawn by order dated 6.10.2008 passed by the Tehsildar, Chunar with further direction requiring the Revenue Inspector to proceed under Section 123 (1) of UPZA&LR Act. It appears that necessary order under Section 123 (1) of UPZA&LR Act were not passed and meanwhile, the said Chhavinath expired. An area of 0.1250 hectares of plot No. 139 was resumed by Commissioner, Vidhyachal Division, Mirzapur for the Dedicated Freight Corridor vide order dated 20.5.2012. After resumption of an area of 0.1250 hectares an area of 0.0140 hectares remained. Thereafter, the petitioners who are the heirs of the deceased Chhavinath moved the Assistant Collector under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 praying that the house site be settled in their favour. The Assistant Collector vide order dated 16.6.2016 required the Tehsildar, Chunar to do the needful in accordance with law and submit report. Thereafter the abadi site in respect of arazi/Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare and arazi/plot No. 140 M, area 0.125 hectare were settled in favour of the petitioners under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006 vide order dated 30.8.2016. The names of the petitioners stand recorded over the Plot No. 139 M area 0.0140 hectares in the relevant revenue records. It is relevant to mention here that Chhavinath was survived by his wife Kamla Devi (petitioner No. 2) and sons Ajay Kumar (petitioner No. 1) Vijay Shanker, Subhash Chandra, Sanjay Kumar, Ishwar Chand.
3. On 24.6.2016, a Notification under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was issued by the Central Government wherein it was provided that certain lands in the district Mirzapur of the State of U.P. are required for the purpose of Special Railway Project i.e. Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor and declared intention to acquire the plots including the Plot No. 139-M area 0.0140 hectare settled in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter a declaration under Section 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989 was published on 12.1.2017. The plot No. 139M area 0.0140, however, did not find place in the declaration of acquisit
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of possession over the disputed plot and the specific eligibility criteria for settlement under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Cod....
The court affirmed that land recorded as Abadi under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains vested in the State, allowing for resumption under Section 117(6) despite claims ....
Compensation must be paid for un-acquired land vested in the Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and restoration of possession cannot be granted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landowner must prove that possession was not taken and compe....
Point of law: Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition cannot go into technical aspects with regard to the alignment of the canal, more particularly, in the abs....
The court emphasized the necessity for factual determination before issuing a writ of mandamus for demarcation or measurement, and declined to interfere in the absence of such determination.
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
