Family settlements must be substantiated with clear evidence; a denial by one party negates claims based on such settlements.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Nigamendra Shukla, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1.

2. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for petitioners states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit to short counter affidavit and wants final disposal of the matter at the admission stage itself without any issuance of notice to respondent no. 2.

3. This writ petition assails the order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC II, Hapur dated 29.01.2025 in Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2023, Mahendra Singh vs. Manish Kumar and others.

4. The land of respondent no. 1 was acquired by National Highways Authority of India for road widening. The matter was referred by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)/Competent Authority, under Section 3H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956 for the consideration of apportionment of the compensation amount. The Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.01.2025 has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Mahendra Singh, respondent no. 1, whose land was acquired, had initially entered into an oral settlement on 21.06.2004 and, thereafter, written settlement was entered on 15.06.2008 by Mahendra Singh in favour of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. According to him, once the written family settlement was arrived, petitioners are entitled for compensation of the land acquired by National Highways Authority of India and denial by competent court as well as the court below is against the dictum of law. Heavy reliance has been placed upon the decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others, Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2014decided on 31.07.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once family settlement was entered between the parties and acted upon, the court below was not competent to hold otherwise. It is further contended that respondent no. 1 i.e. father of petitioners is creating the dispute and he has already given no objection on 16.11.2023 in favour of petitioners for releasing the compensation as per the family settlement of 2004 and 2008.

7. Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that it is a self acquired property of Mahendra Singh and already a partition suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending consideration before court of Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur. According to him, petitioners in the year 2022 have instituted a declaratory suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and family settlement had not taken place between the parties. There is a categorical denial on the part of respondent no. 1 as to the execution of family settlement between the parties. He further submits that till the partition suit is decided by competent court, share cannot be ascertained and compensation cannot be released in favour of petitioners in terms of alleged family settlement of 2004 or 2008. He also contended that respondent no. 1, Mahendra Singh had purchased the land acquired by National Highways Authority of India through sale- deed dated 06.08.1965 from Nidhan Singh, Harpal Singh and Ikbal Singh, copies of which have been brought on record as annexure-1 to short counter affidavit.

8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. It is not in dispute that Mahendra Singh had purchased the land in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 1033, 1036 through sale-deed dated 06.08.1965 from Nidhan Singh, Harpal Singh and Ikbal Singh which has been acquired by National Highways Authority of India in the year 2018. Moreover, a partition suit filed by Mahendra Singh under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against other co-sharers is pending consideration at the second appellate stage before Board of R