Dev Narayan Sharma And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10608 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3334 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Dev Narayan Sharma And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar,Anuj Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Ravi Prakash Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent/Ghaziabad Development Authority.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order impugned dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition/Deputy District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Irrigation Department, Ghaziabad on Application No. 92 of 1992, under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). With a further prayer commanding the respondents to re-determine the compensation in the light of judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 525 of 1992 and the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1710 of 2016(GDA v/s. Ram Kishan and others).

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and placed reliance upon judgment and order dated 3.6.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Mohd. Yaqoob and ors. (First Appeal No. 305 of 2021), wherein, the Division Bench has opined that the appeal under Section 54 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not maintainable against an award of the Collector passed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the High Court as the remedy against the same is available under Section 28-A(3) of the Act by filing an application to the Collector seeking reference of dispute of the Court. Once the efficacious remedy is available, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the guise of re-determination of compensation in the light of judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 525 of 1992 and the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1710 of 2016 (GDA v/s. Ram Kishan and others).

Once an objection is being raised, we have proceeded to examine the record in question and the judgement cited above. We find that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order impugned dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition/Deputy District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Irrigation Department, Ghaziabad on Application No. 95 of 1992, under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We are of the considered opinion once the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.

In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case any such application under Section 28-A(3) of the Act is being preferred by the petitioners within two weeks from today, the same would be considered strictly in accordance with law on its own merit within further two months time ignoring the delay and laches in filing the same but certainly after affording opportunity to all stakeholders in the matter.

Order Date :- 11.4.2023

A.K.Srivastava