Vijay Kumar Chug vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9645 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 73 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Chug
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Dube
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, on the Review Application No.73 of 2022.

2. This review application has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.25999 of 2020 (Vijay Kumar Chug vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.), which is reproduced below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Petitioner seeks direction to pay compensation in lieu of the acquisition of land bearing Khasra No. 2479, 2480 Ka, 2480 Kha, 285 Ka, 2841 and 2482 admeasuring 5072.20 sq.mt. located at village Kakhila, Paragna Jallalabad, Tehsil Modinagar, District Ghaziabad and also direct the respondent to decide petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2019.

The facts on record reveals that the land in question was acquired vide notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 published on 08.08.2011. That a notice under Section 3D(1) of 1956 Act was published on 07.08.2012. And the award was passed on 31.12.2013. That as per contention on behalf of the petitioner, he purchased the land in question vide sale deed dated 15.09.2014, i.e. much after when by virtue of notification under Section 3D(1) of 1956 Act was published thereby vesting the land in the Central Govt. without any encumbrance under Sub-section (2) of Section 3D of 1956 Act. Therefore, the sale deed executed after the notification under Section 3D (1) of 1956 Act resulting in vesting of land in the Central Govt. was void ab initio. As the erstwhile holder of land got divested of his right title and interest in the land in question. In view whereof since no right accrued in favour of the petitioner for compensation. Furthermore, the above aspect has been vividly dealt upon by the Arbitrator in his award dated 31.12.2013, which the petitioner has allowed to attain finality.

In view whereof since no relief can be granted, petition fails and is dismissed."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner could not point out any apparent error of law on the face of records in the aforequoted judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 passed by this Court.

4. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the review application. Consequently, this review application is rejected.

Order Date :- 8.8.2022

SK