Forceful dispossession and use of private land for public purpose without following due process of law violates the constitutional right under Article 300A, and delay cannot negate the claim for compensation in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Tahira Kazmi and Quazi Mohammad Akram learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Suresh Singh learned Standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 7.

2. The case of the learned counsel for the petitioners, who are three in number, as worded in the writ petition is that they are recorded tenure holders of the land situate in Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj. In paragraph ‘3’ of the writ petition it is averred that the petitioner no. 1 is the tenure holder of the land being Gata No. 34 measuring 0.137 hectares and Gata No. 37 measuring 0.068 hectares situated at Gram Khaur, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj. Further averments have been made that the petitioner no. 2 is also the tenure holder of the land being Gata No. 524/2 measuring area 0.132 hectare situated at Gram Lutar, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj. Similarly in paragraph 4 of the writ petition it has further been averred that the petitioner no. 3 is also the tenure holder of the land, Gata No. 97 Ga (Wrongly typed as 37Ga) measuring 0.1830 hectares situated at Gram Tigja, Tappa Kohdar, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj.

3. It is further the case of the writ petitioners that since their plots are adjacent and abeting the road so in order to execute the project for construction of road from S.M.K. Marg to Lutar Khaur Bhaiya Laxman Ka Pura, Meja, Bhatauti Marg District Prayagraj, the respondent authorities in an unauthorised and illegal manner started digging their land and also excavated the soil which not only was detrimental to the interest of the petitioners but the crops which were standing over their land also got destroyed.

4. In paragraph ‘6’ and ‘7’ of the writ petition, further averments have been made that the respondents have widened the road in question up to 13 meters and had also made two meter trench after digging it on both sides of the roads in an authorised manner, the photographs substantiating the digging, excavation of the soil and construction have been appended as annexure ‘3A’ at page ‘31A’ onward, of the paper book.

5. It is further the case of the petitioners that neither under the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 any proceedings for acquisition of land in question was undertaken by the respondents nor their consent was obtained before utilising the land of the petitioners. As per the writ petitioners they being confronted with the said situation represented the matter before the Tehsildar Meja, Prayagraj on 10.4.2017. On the representation of the writ petitioners the Tehsildar Meja, Prayagraj directed the Lekhpal concerned to conduct spot inspection.

6. In Para ‘8’ of the writ petition it has further been averred that on 23.5.2017 the Lekhpal conducted inspection and submitted his report. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that since no remedial action was being taken by the respondents so the writ petitioners approached the fourth respondent, Collector, District Prayagraj on 18.7.2017 for ventilation of their grievances. On the representation preferred by the petitioners before the fourth respondent, the Collector Prayagraj, Prayagraj directed the second respondent, Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Prayagraj to look into the matter and to proceed in accordance with law.

7. In Para ‘10’ of the writ petition it has been pleaded that the second respondent, Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Prayagraj submitted his report before the Superintendent Engineer, Prayagraj Circle, Public Works Department, Prayagraj referring to the fact that the road was being constructed under the Central Road Funds Scheme and it was to be placed in the category “Other District Road.” Aggrieved against the non ventilation of the grievances by the respondents herein, the petitioners preferred Writ (C) No. 48703 of 2017, Umakant and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others which came to be disposed off on 23.10.2017 granting liberty to the writ petitioners