Allahabad High Court
State Of U;.P. Thru' Executive ... vs D.D.C. And 3 Ors. on 28 July, 2014
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 37513 of 2014
Petitioner :- State Of U;.P. Thru' Executive Enigneer, P.W.D.
Respondent :- D.D.C. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Madhu Tandon, Sc
Counsel for Respondent :- V. Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Ms. Madhu Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Singh, who appears for contesting respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.
The State has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr (the DDC) in Ref. No. 26/80/13-14, Naresh Kumar Vs. State of UP under section 48 suit (3) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
This reference was prepared regarding plot no. 979, which in the basic year recorded in the name of the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents claim that an area 0.404 Hect of plot no. 979 was acquired for construction of road and that valuation in lieu thereof be provided to the tenure holder.
The DDC recorded finding that no land belonging to the contesting respodents had been acquired by the State Government and therefore, there is no question of paying any compensation to them.
It appears that some plots had been acquired for construction of bye-pass. The DDC has also recorded that an area 0.404 hect of plot no. 979 has been recorded as bye-pass. A categorical finding has been recorded by the DDC that this plot has not been acquired. This finding is in consonance with the case of the petitioner before the Court below. The DDC has therefore directed the name of the contesting respondent be recorded after expunging the entry of bye-pass.
Before this Court the following two submissions have been made by the counsel for the State.
(i) Firstly, that plot no. 979 was not acquired.
(ii) Secondly the Public Works Department (the PWD) was a necessary party in the proceedings and that the order impugned order is ex parte and therefore the writ petition deseves to be entertained.
As far as first submission is concerned, in view of the categorical finding recorded that plot no 797 was never acquired, the petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved because the order is in consonance with the stand of the State in the proceedings before the DDC. Since the case of the State has been accepted, the State cannot be an aggrieved party and cannot maintain this petition on this ground.
As regard second submission that PWD was a necessary party and was wrongly not impleaded in the proceedings, it would suffice to say that the acquisition, if any, was made by the State. The PWD would be necessary party only as regards quantum of compensation is concerned. In the instant case the plot of the petitioner has not been acquired. The question of PWD being necessary party is therefore without any substance.
Accordingly and for the reasons disclosed above, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is misconceived and is therefore dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2014/SKS
Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. of 2014
in
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 37513 of 2014
Petitioner :- State Of U;.P. Thru' Executive Enigneer, P.W.D.
Respondent :- D.D.C. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Madhu Tandon, Sc
Counsel for Respondent :- V. Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
The amendment application filed today in court is taken on record.
Heard counsel for the parties. The amendment application is allowed. Necessary incorporation may be made during the course of the day.
Order Date :- 28.7.2014
SKS
