IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the validity of the compensation process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the authority of the District Magistrate's approval.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the respondents to pay the compensation under the provisions of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and also pay the damages of some part of the residential premises to the petitioner as the respondents has taken the land of Arazi No. 851, plot No. 370, area 0.0053 hectare situated at village Kalna Gaharwar, District Mirzapur.

3. The matter was entertained by the coordinate Bench on 9.2.2023 and the Court has passed a detailed order. The same is reproduced herein below.

''Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited, respondent No. 4.

The dispute raised in the present petition is with regard to determination of compensation for acquisition of the land in khata No. 851, gata No. 370 area 0.0053 hectares situated at village Kalna Gaharwar, District Mirzapur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid land is to be utilized for construction of two lane over bridge by U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited, namely respondent No. 4 herein and a committee had been constituted by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur for determination of compensation for the land in question. The report of the committee for determination of compensation had been approved by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur.

The proposal for the consent of the land owner in Form-I has been prepared which is appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, wherein initially the compensation was determined four times to the rate of Rs. 2300/- per sq. meter, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 9,200/- per sq. meter total of which came to Rs. 4,87,600/-. The same has now been reduced in the fresh proposal Form-I which is appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition (page-28 of the paper book), wherein two times of the rate of Rs. 2300/- per sq. meter has been determined for compensation, the total amount is, thus, reduced to Rs. 2,43,800/-.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the U.P. Bridge Corporation has demolished a portion of the building of the petitioner and the construction of over-bridge is underway. Only Rs. 20,000/- is proposed to be paid to the petitioner for damage caused to the portico (Barja) of the building in question.

Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the office of the Deputy Project Manager of the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. is forcing the petitioner to sign the consent in Form-I on the reduced rate, by wrong application of the valuation.

Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 prays for and is granted ten days time to seek instruction and file personal affidavit of the Deputy Project Manager, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. replying to grievances raised by the petitioner.

As prayed, list this case on 15.2.2023 as fresh.''

4. In response thereof, personal affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 is already on record.

5. On the basis of averments contained in the affidavit, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 vehemently contended that the land in question had been identified for the construction of two-lane Railway Over Bridge (ROB) at Railway Crossing No. 12B (km. 755/19-21) near Gaypura Yard. The compensation of the land in question had been determined by the committee under the chairmanship of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Mirzapur, which had been approved by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur on 10.10.2022. The determination of compensation was done by the committee, which is brought on record as Annexure 1 to the personal affidavit. The same was