Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 2 Others vs Om Veer Singh And 3 Others on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7064 of 2022
Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Respondent :- Om Veer Singh And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
The petitioner-Union of India has approached this Court challenging the order dated 23.1.2020 passed by the Arbitrator/District Judge, Agra in amendment application filed by the claimant/respondent in Land Acquisition Case No. 94 of 1981 (Om Veer Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 25.8.2020 passed by the Arbitrator/District Judge, Agra on the application 29-C filed by the petitioners in Land Acquisition Case No. 94 of 1981 challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.
The land was acquired under the provisions of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952). The compensation of the same was fixed by the learned District Judge, as per the provisions of the said Act. Against the said order of the District Judge, appeal was filed before this Court, which was remanded back by this Court by judgment and order dated 28.2.2019 directing the court below to also consider the case for award of solatium and interest in accordance with law. The High Court had allowed the appeals and quashed the award passed by the District Judge, and thereafter, remanded the case for being decided afresh. In the matter, an amendment application was filed by the claimants praying for a change in the description of the Military Estate Department, as its name has changed and also praying that now under the changed law they are entitled for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No. 30 of 2013). The said amendment application was allowed by the impugned order dated 23.1.2020. Thus, petitioner was permitted to correct the change of name in the array of parties and also was permitted to raise ground with regard to benefit of Act No. 30 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order is illegal, as the Act No. 30 of 2013 is not applicable to the proceedings and no benefit under the same can be claimed.
The said case is yet to be decided by the learned Arbitrator/District Judge. It has only permitted adding of the grounds in the claim. Merely by adding of a ground, no right of the petitioners is impacted. The merit of the ground brought in by amendment is to be considered and all objections can be raised by the claimants with regard to the same at the time of hearing of the plaint petition.
The next submission of counsel for the petitioners is that an application was moved challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The said application is rejected by the order dated 25.8.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the said application the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter with regard to Act No. 30 of 2013 is raised. The applicability and merits of the said argument is yet to be considered by the court. The court definitely has jurisdiction to hear the claim petition on all the grounds raised whether there is any merit in all the grounds, is to be considered by the court. Therefore, all the objections with regard to benefit of Act No. 30 of 2013 will be considered and decided by the Arbitrator/District Judge at the time of decision on the claim petition.
Since the Misc. Case No. 94 of 1981 with regard to compensation is pending for the last more than forty one years, the learned District Judge is directed to proceed and decide the same expeditiously without any delay. It appears to be one of the oldest pending case before the court concerned. He shall not fix a date in the matter of more than a week and the Court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment including the ground of strikes of the lawyers and also record reasons for granting adjournment, if any found necessary in the matter. The case shall be taken up on day-to-day basis. The parties shall fully cooperate in early disposal of the case.
With the aforesaid direction,the petition is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022
Sumaira
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
