Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Bindal, CJ., Prakash Padia, J.
Awadhesh Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
C.M. Review Application No.40 of 2019 In WRIT C No. -16532 of 2017
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Land Acquisition - Property Rights - U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Section 161 - Article 300A of the Constitution of India - Act of 2013 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a plot surrounded by land acquired by the State Government, leading to lack of ingress and egress to the plot. The petitioner sought relief through various legal avenues, including writ petitions and appeals, challenging the denial of exchange and acquisition of his land.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's land was indeed surrounded by acquired land and that the State Authorities had declined to acquire the petitioner's land or raise any construction on it. The petitioner was aware of the land's situation at the time of purchase.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the petitioner's claim for compensation and relief due to lack of ingress and egress to the surrounded plot, as well as the State Authorities' refusal to acquire the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner, with full knowledge of the land's situation, had taken a risk and made an investment in the land. The State Authorities were not obligated to provide ingress and egress over the acquired land. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner was awarded compensation for the investment made in the land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the respondent to pay the petitioner the consideration amount along with interest, and the petitioner was directed to execute a sale deed in favor of the respondent.
ORDER :
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
Order on C.M. Review Application No.40 of 2019
1. The present review application has been filed with a prayer to review/recall the order dated 5.11.2019, by restoring the writ petition to its original number, with a further prayer to allow the writ petition by granting relief prayed for in the writ petition or with any other relief, which this Court deem fit and proper in the interest of the justice.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner in the writ petition, claimed that he is owner of plot no. 38/302, area 2300 square meter in village Daulatpur, Tehsil Firozabad, District Firozabad. The said plot was purchased by the petitioner by a registered sale deed in the year 2010. It is further stated in the writ petition that 101.01 acre of land of same village, surrounding the plot of the petitioner was acquired by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to ‘UPSIDC’). Out of the aforesaid area, 95.60 acre land was entered in name of UPSIDC and remaining 06.41 acre was recorded in name of Collector, Firozabad. The said acquisition was made in the year 1988.
3. It is further stated in the writ petition that the land purchased by the petitioner was not acquired, whereas the surrounding plots were acquired. Thus, the petitioner had no ingress and egress to his plot.
4. The petitioner applied for exchange of his land with other land as contemplated under section 161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said application was not decided, as such, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.43249 of 2013, praying for a direction to the State Authority to decide the application with regard to exchange of his plot. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within the time bound period. The application of the petitioner for exchange was rejected by the Authority concerned by an order dated 23.9.2013. The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order was also rejected by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue. The revision of the petitioner was allowed ex-parte. Thereafter, the State Authority filed a review application before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue stayed its earlier order. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 111 of 2017 for a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the review application filed by the State Authority. Ultimately, the review application of the State Authority was allowed and the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 19.1.2018. The order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue was subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2976 of 2018. The said writ petition was also dismissed on 19.3.2018.
5. The petitioner in the present writ petition has stated that the land of the petitioner is surrounded by the land acquired by the State Government. Thus, there is no ingress and egress to the plot of the petitioner. It is further stated in the writ petition that the land of the petitioner is within the boundary wall of the Government Medical College being constructed over the acquired land.
6. This Court by an order dated 5.11.2019 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the State Government had denied its possession over the land of the petitioner and has also denied to be interested in acquiring the land of the petitioner. So far as ingress and egress to the plot of the petitioner is concerned, this Court kept it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Common Law.
7. The petitioner has argued that the statement of Additional Advocate General regarding the possession over the land in dispute is contrary to record.
8. Elaborating the said argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the document, i.e. counter affidavit filed by Sri Kamal Kumar, Assistant Resident Enginee
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Authorities are not obligated to provide ingress and egress over acquired land, and that in cases where a petitioner knowingly inves....
Land Acquisition and Requisition – Right of compensation - Where right of compensation of petitioner/appellant is dependent upon proof of his title/ownership as well as on fact that whether land was ....
Resolution by the Land Management Committee for land allotment without approval from the S.D.M. lacks legal validity, leading to unlawful possession claims.
The court established that land once acquired vests with the State, and claims of non-possession or non-payment do not negate the validity of the acquisition.
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.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
The deliberate failure to claim compensation for the land, despite being aware of the ownership and the opportunity to object to the acquisition, led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
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
