State Of U.P.Thru ... vs Rajesh Chandra Shukla
2022 Latest Caselaw 18305 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 479 of 2006
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation And 3 Ors.S/S 450/1993
 
Respondent :- Rajesh Chandra Shukla
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Standing Counsel
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Brijendra Singh,Ashok Kumar Mishra Baled,Ram Janak Yadav,Santosh Kumar Yadav Warsi,Shatrohan Lal
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Order on Civil Misc. Application No. 23090 of 2009

(Application for condonation of Delay)

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that delay in filing the First Appeal has sufficiently been explained.

2. Accordingly, application is allowed and delay is condoned.

Order on Appeal

Heard the learned State counsel representing the appellants-State authorities and Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav "Warsi" for the respondent-petitioner.

By means of this Special Appeal State authorities have laid a challenge to the judgment and order dated 18th December, 2005 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 450 (S/S) of 1993 whereby the writ petition was allowed and after quashing the oral termination order dated 1.1.1992, direction was issued to the State Authorities to reinstate the respondent-petitioner on his original post of Work Supervisor and regularize him within a reasonable period, not later than within four months.

The respondent-petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition before learned Single Judge claiming his regular appointment on the ground of certain land belonging to him was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and as such in terms of the earlier policy of the State Government he being a land oustee was entitled to be given employment.

However the said issue as to whether the land oustee has got any right to be appointed as a government employee in lieu of his land having been acquired, has been settled by a Full Bench decision in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 118 wherein it has been held that a land oustee does not have any such right.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgement in the case of Ravindra Kumar, the Special Appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 18th December, 2005 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 450 (S/S) of 1993 is hereby set aside.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not even got the amount of compensation in lieu of his land acquired by the State Authorities.

Accordingly, we provide that in case the respondent-petitioner makes an application claiming the compensation in lieu of the land acquired, to the District Magistrate/Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and compensation if any, shall be paid to the respondent-petitioner within two months from the date such an application is made by him. We make it clear that the respondent-petitioner shall be entitled to all the statutory amount payable to him under the Land Acquisition Act or for under any other law in force.

Order Date :- 22.11.2022

RS