Court No. - 39

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32985 of 2022

Petitioner :- Hari Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Gupta

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ranjeet Kumar Yadav

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of the mandamus

commanding the respondent no.2 to provide all the papers regarding

correct measurement of the area of the land in question (Gata no.979)

acquired by the respondent no.2 which was used for the construction of

canal.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of the mandamus

commanding the respondent no.2 not to harass the petitioner for taking

the money in view of the illegal compromise dated 29.09.2022 made

between the petitionre and respondent no.5.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of the mandamus

commanding the respondent no.2 to refund the amount of Rs.1 lacs which

was taken by the respondent n.5 under illegal compromise dated

29.09.2022 within stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court during the

pendency of the present writ petition."

On the last occasion when the matter was taken up on

04.11.2022, having noted that the partition decree dated

5.01.2022 and that the kurras of the parties namely the

petitioner and respondent no.5 have been determined on

13.1.2022, on the statement by Sri Anuj Kumar Gupta learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing

to honour the terms agreement dated 29.9.2022, and that he was

ready to bring a bank draft of the compensation recieved by him

with respect to share of respondent no.5, the matter has been

posted on 21.11.2022. It was observed therein that out of total

amount of Rs.4,69,520/- which came in the share of the

respondent no.5 as compensation, Rs.1 lac has already been

paid to the respondent no.5. The direction was, thus, issued to

bring a bank draft of Rs.3,69,520/- before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits today that though the

bank draft has been prepared by the petitioners but in terms of

the agreement dated 29.09.2022, the petitioner would be liable

to pay the charges of execution of the sale deed for 160

squaremeters of the land belonging to respondent no.5.

Submission, thus, is that it is difficult for the petitioner to

honour the agreement dated 29.09.2022 and hence the order

dated 04.11.2022 passed by this Court could not be complied.

Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact of the matter that the

petitioner herein had executed the sale deed dated 23.3.2021 in

favour of the Canal Department, even in respect of the share of

respondent no.5 in the land in question and the compensation

determined by the canal department with respect to the entire

land in question has been received by the petitioner in full.

In any case, though at the time of the execution of the sale deed,

the partition by meets and bounds of the land in question had

not occurred but in any case, the petitioner could not receive the

compensation for the share of the respondent no.5.

Be that as it may, the dispute is essentially between the

petitioner, canal department and respondent no.5 (who has been

recognized as co sharer/owner of the land in question). It seems

that recovery of excess compensation received by the petitioner

has been initiated against him at the instance of the respondent

no.5.

In the said scenario, it is open for the petitioner to approach the

competent authority to redress his grievance.

The prayers in the writ petition are found misconceived and

hence dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.1.2023

Harshita

Digitally signed by :-

HARSHITA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad