Allahabad High Court
Jamil Ahamad Faruqui And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1390 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Faruqui And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Kumar Rai,Prashant Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramakant Singh,Vrindavan Mishra
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Petitioners seek following relief:
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare and treat the land acquisition proceedings culminated in the award dated 28.04.1976 and reference court judgement dated 06.09.1990 with regard to the 22.755 acre area of plot No. 1052 situated in village Sathiyon, Tahsil Sadar, district Azamgarh and plot No. 342, 343, 344, 345 and 346 situated in village Surai, Tahsil Sadar, district Azamgarh as lapsed by operation of law as contained in section 24(2) of Act No. 30 of 2013.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in lieu of acquisition of 22.755 acre petitioner's plot No. 1052, situated in village Sathiyon, Tahsil Sadar, district Azamgarh and plot No. 342, 343, 344, 345 and 346 situated in village Surai, Tahsil Sadar, district Azamgarh according to current market value and provisions contained under Act No. 30 of 2013."
Facts as adverted at by the petitioners reveal that 22.755 acres of land said to be belonging to the petitioners and their ancestors were acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification under Section 4 (issued on 1.9.1973) and under Section 6 (issued on 10.9.1973) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited Sathiyaon, Azamgarh. That an award was passed on 28.4.1976 determining compensation @ Rs. 3500 per acre. On a reference at the instance of the land owners under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 10,000 per hectares vide order dated 6.9.1990. The petitioners and their predecessors in little being satisfied with the reference allowed it to attain finality. However, reference order was challenged by the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Sathiyaon vide First Appeal No. 55 of 1991 and First Appeal No. 56 of 1991 under Section 54 of the Act of 1894. The appeals were however dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.4.2002 and the restoration application was also dismissed on 18.10.2008. It appears from the pleadings that no further proceedings were brought against the said dismissal. Be that as it may, the petitioners now have filed this petition stating that since they did not receive the compensation the same may now be computed as per the provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 which has come into force on 1.1.2014.
We are not convinced with the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled for enhanced compensation. The acquisition proceedings having attained finality with the petitioners not challenging the reference order dated 6.9.1990 whereby the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 3500 per hectares to Rs. 10,000 per hectares are to blame themselves, for not receiving the compensation and wait for years without taking any steps therefor. In our considered opinion the petitioner is not entitled for the enhanced compensation under the provision of Act of 2013 as the proceedings under the Act of 1894 stood concluded. In this context reference can be had of the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016 (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others) decided on 6.3.2020 wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold as under:-
"359. We are of the considered opinion that Section 24 cannot be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases. They cannot be inquired into within the purview of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The provisions of Section 24 do not invalidate the judgments and orders of the Court, where rights and claims have been lost and negatived. There is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24. In exceptional cases, when in fact, the payment has not been made, but possession has been taken, the remedy lies elsewhere if the case is not covered by the proviso. It is the Court to consider it independently not under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
363(9). Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition."
In view whereof as the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021
A. V. Singh
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)
