IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for land acquisition must be equitably distributed among all co-owners, and mistaken payments can be reclaimed by the authority.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following relief:-

(i) Issue writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 15.07.2022 and order dated 04.08.2022 as issued by respondent no. 2 (contained annexure no. 14 and 16 respectively)

2. The orders passed by Competent Authority Land Acquisition/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridwar are enclosed as Annexure 14 & 16 to the writ petition. By the order dated 15.07.2022, petitioners were asked to refund the amount paid as compensation to them, within fifteen days, failing which it may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Careful perusal of the said order reveals that the land, for which compensation was paid to each of the petitioners, was acquired under National Highways Act, 1956 and substantial amount was paid to each of the petitioners. Thereafter, an objection was filed by legal heirs of Megh Raj S/o Asha Ram stating that land comprised in Khasra No. 332, for which petitioners were paid compensation, is subject matter of litigation and interim order has been passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is still operating and by suppressing this fact, petitioners fraudulently received compensation.

4. By a subsequent letter dated 04.08.2022, Special Land Acquisition Officer requested District Collector, Haridwar to recover total sum of Rs.4,96,58,425/- from all the petitioners. The said letter is also challenged in the writ petition.

5. According to petitioners, Narendra Singh was recorded tenure holder of Khasra No. 332, Revenue Village Saliyar Salhapur Mustahakam, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, who was having 1/4th share in said Khasra; Narendra Singh sold his complete share in Khasra No. 332 by sale deed dated 30.06.2015 in favour of Mr. Piyush Kumar (petitioner no. 1) and one Mr. Naushad Ahmad, petitioner no. 1 and Naushad Ahmad became joint owner of the said land, having equal share based on the said sale deed; on 30.12.2020, Naushad Ahmad sold his undivided share in the said land to petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and all petitioners became joint owners, thus, according to petitioners, they were rightly paid compensation for the land purchased by them, which originally belonged to Narendra Singh. Thus, according to petitioners, the orders passed by Competent Authority Land Acquisition, asking the petitioners to refund the amount received as compensation, are unsustainable.

6. Petitioners have relied upon an affidavit alleged to have been filed by their predecessor in interest – Narendra Singh, wherein it is stated that he has no objection against payment of compensation for the land comprised in Khasra No. 332 in favour of petitioner No. 1 and Naushad Ahmad.

7. Annexure 10 to the writ petition is a judgment dated 12.03.2013 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 252 of 2009. The said writ petition was filed by Mr. Narendra Singh. Perusal of the said judgment reveals that a suit for partition was filed by Narendra Singh under Section 176 of Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in respect of property situate in Village Saliyar Salhapur Mustahakam, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the said judgment coordinate Bench set aside the order passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Pauri in Second Appeal No. 56 of 2005-06 (Meghraj vs. Narendra Singh & others) and remanded the matter back to the Second Appellate Court to decide the second appeal afresh, after framing substantial questions of law.

8. Respondents to the writ petition filed Review Petition no. 403 of 2013 and coordinate Bench passed the following interim order on the review application on 20.08.2015:-

“Considering the said submission, I direct that during the pendency of the applications, status-quo shall be maintained in respect of the property in dispute and the parties are directed not to create any third party interest till the next date of listing.”

9. The said review application was ultimately rejected by coo