The State cannot utilize private property without lawful acquisition and compensation, as protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Anish Kumar Gutpa, J.

1. Heard Sri Vimlesh Kumar and Sri Shiv Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the District Level Committee constituted under a Government Order dated 12.05.2016, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 29915 of 2019 (Smt. Kanyavati vs. State of U.P.).

3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the land situated at Khasra No. 53 area 0.0690 hectare situated at Village- Akha, Pargana- Ballia, Tehsil- Anwala, District- Bareilly, which she had purchased by way of sale deed from Fate Singh (However, from the perusal of the sale deed dated 02.12.2009 annexed as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder, it is apparent that the petitioner had purchased the land from Smt. Urmila Devi). On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, her name was mutated in the revenue records as bhumidhar with transferable rights. On the south of the aforesaid plot, was a chak road. The case of the petitioner is that as per the revenue records the width of the said road was two and a half metre (8.25 feet) and the road was already constructed thereon. Subsequent thereto, the widening of the road was done in which according to the petitioner her land, to the extent of 0.033 hectare, has been utilized by the PWD without payment of any compensation.

4. An RTI application was filed before Public Information Officer/ Executive Officer, PWD Division- Bareilly seeking information with regard to any acquisition proceedings for widening of the road. In reply thereto, it was informed to the petitioner that there is no record available with regard to acquisition of the land as this Division was constituted 7-8 years ago. Thereupon, she kept on sending the representations claiming therein that in the revenue record the width of the chak road was 8.25 feet whereas the road was constructed on the width of 3 metre. Subsequently, the road has been further widened without acquiring the land or payment of compensation to the land owners and she claimed compensation for her land used for widening of the road. When she did not receive any response from the Authority, she filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 29915 of 2019, which was disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate- Bareilly to refer the matter to the District Level Committee in terms of the Government Order dated12.05.2016, for determination of entitlement of compensation of the petitioner herein. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the matter was referred to the District Level Committee. Vide order dated 24.02.2020, the District Level Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner, holding that the road was initially a chak marg on which a 3 metre wide pakka road was constructed about 25-30 years back and on both sides 2.50 metre patri was available. In the year 2012-15, the said road was widened on both sides utilizing 1.25 metre available patri without affecting land of any tenureholder. Since, no land of the petitioner was acquired for purpose of widening of the road, therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation.

5. The claim of the petitioner is that as per revenue record width of chak marg was only 2.5 metre. Therefore, the additional land which has been utilized for construction of the road and widening of the road is bhumidhari land, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. The State Authorities cannot utilize the land of the petitioner without payment of compensation.

6. Per Contra learned Standing Counsel submits that since three metre wide road was constructed 25-30 years back without any objection from any side, in view thereof the petitioner, who has subsequently purchased the land in question in the year, 2019 cannot claim any compensation. It is further alleged that in t