Allahabad High Court
Ayyub And 8 Others vs Saksham Pradhikari/ Additional ... on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No.9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8946 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ayyub And 8 Others
Respondent :- Saksham Pradhikari/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance/ Revenue) And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Dube
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav, J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)
Heard learned counel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-State. Shri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.4.
This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari against the respondents by way of quashing the impugned award dated 18.08.2020 of respondent No.3 (Annexure No.7) Special Land Acquisition Officer (J.O.)/City Magistrate, Saharanpur and the orders dated 22.01.2021 of respondent No.1, Saksham Pradhikari/Additional District Magistrate (F/R) Shamli (Annexure No.11) in the interest of justice in the circumstances of the case."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Khasra No.237 in Mauza-Balwa, Pargana, Tehsil & District-Shamli, is in the joint holdings of the petitioners alongwith the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6. By an order dated 02.03.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.1852 of 1993 (writ petition of 1993) filed by the respective fathers of the petitioners, this Court had quashed the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) as the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 17.02.1987 had become final with regard to the determination of share between the parties and they were entitled to a share of 1/9th part of the same, and that the order of the DDC did not record any specific finding with regard to the right of the petitioners. The matter was remitted to the DDC for fresh decision on merits. However, by means of another order dated 21.07.2020, the DDC did not make any adjustment as was the import of the judgment as such the same was challenged by the predecessor of the petitioners by means of a Writ-B No.48648 of 2010 (writ petiton of 2010). The writ petition of 2020 was admitted by the Court and the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the DDC was stayed and the parties were restrained from transfering and eliniating the property in dispute.
Thereafter, it is contended, Plot No.237 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by means of a notification dated 21.11.2011. The award was declared on 18.08.2020. An objection was filed by the petitioner no.1, namely, Ayyub in which he had stated that the issue with regard to the ownership of the aforesaid plot is pending disposal before the High Court and that till the disposal of the writ petition, the compensation may not be disbursed, and also that the rate of compensation be enhanced. It is stated that by means of the impugned order dated 22.01.2021, the amount of compensation with regard to the undisputed part of Khasra No.237 has been directed to be made to the private respondents, which is illegal and without taking into account the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as that passed by this Court on 02.03.2009 in the writ petition of 1993.
On perusing the record, it is evident that only the petitioner no.1 had moved an objection before the competent authority dated 23.09.2020 which was filed on 22.10.2020, objecting to the application filed by the private respondents for payment of compensation. The competent authority, after taking into account the application filed by the private respondents as well as the objection filed by the petitioner no.1 and on considering the various orders passed by this Court as well as by the Consolidation Authorities, observed that apart from that part of the property in dispute (which is the subject matter of the writ petition) pending before the High Court, there is no hurdle to the payment of compensation with regard to the remaining acquired land. The competent authority also noted the order dated 30.01.2015 passed on an application filed by the petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.48648 of 2010 by which order the Court refused to grant relief for not disbursing the amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer but left it open to the petitioners to seek such remedy as may be available under law with regard to the compensation and the application was dismissed. The competent authority accordingly directed that except payment of compensation of the land having an area of 6 biswas and 10 biswansi, the balance land's compensation be paid to the recorded tenure holders and the private respondents were directed that if in future, any order is passed by the High Court against them, they would be bound by that order.
Under the circumstances and on considering the order passed by the competent authority, the petitioners have no ground to maintain the present petition. Their rights, if any, stand protected in the impunged order by the competent authority.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date :18.03.2021
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)
