Allahabad High Court
Makkhan Lal And Anr. vs U.O.I.Thru.Secy.Ministry Of ... on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29976 of 2019
Petitioner :- Makkhan Lal And Anr.
Respondent :- U.O.I.Thru.Secy.Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mata Prasad Yadav,Ajay Madhavan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,Kumar Ayush
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
(C.M. APPLICATION NO.33893/2020-Application for Condonation of delay)
Heard.
This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application.
The said application is supported by an affidavit and there are sufficient reasons for condoning the delay.
The application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.
The review application is treated to have been filed in time.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the judgment and order dated 09.01.2020.
It is the case of the petitioners as argued by the counsel in the Review Petition that he had asked for compensation only of the remaining part of the land which was not acquired but was taken possession of by the respondents.
This Court has carefully perused the pleadings in the writ petition. The pleadings in the writ petition do not support the case as argued by Shri Mata Prasad Yadav. There is no mention of the pleadings in the writ petition that part of the land was acquired and compensation was paid to the father of the petitioners and that the rest of the land belonging to the petitioners were not acquired but it had been encroached upon for which compensation is being demanded.
In Paragraph-10 of the writ petition, a mention has been made that the petitioners' land had neither been acquired nor any compensation had been given to them and it had been occupied without following due procedure of law and in the prayer clause, the petitioners have prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to remove the encroachment or to pay the fair compensation in accordance with 'The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 of the land of Gata No.1514-Kha area 0.0970 hectare situated at Village Chheeda, Pargana Aasal, Tehsil & District Amethi.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not given any opportunity to rebut the arguments made by the respondents, that the petitioners' father was given compensation for Gata No.1514 Kha, area 0.0970 hectare which was acquired alongwith other land and that by a Notification. The total land of 396-15-18 Bighas had been acquired. The payment of compensation to original tenure holder Jokhu S/o Ram Ratan was made through Cheque No.953754.
The Review Application is misconceived and it is dismissed, more so because the writ petition was filed by Shri Ajay Madhavan, Advocate, and it is being argued by Shri M.P. Yadav, Advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Tamilnadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, that what happened exactly in Court during the course of the arguments can only be stated by the counsel who argued the matter originally in writ jurisdiction.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
N.PAL
