Allahabad High Court
Kishan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162278-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15795 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kishan Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jagannath Maurya,Shiv Prakash Gupta
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. The instant petition has been filed inter alia for following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents specially the respondent no.3 and 4, if they want to acquire the land of the petitioner (Plot Nos. 86 and 101/1 situated in village Nagla Battu, Yadgarpur, Pargana, Tehsil and district Meerut) then initiate the proceeding strictly according to the provisions contained in the Act 30 of 2013 so that the injustice may be done."
2. The admitted fact is that the land of the petitioner was acquired by a notification dated 21.08.1985, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by a notification dated 28.08.1985 under Section 6 of the Act. An award was made on 18.06.2002. The compensation amount was duly deposited in the treasury. However, the petitioner did not withdraw the amount and filed the instant petition for the above relief. On 02.08.2023, the following order was passed:
"1. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire compensation amount, as awarded, is already in deposit and it is open to the petitioner to approach the Authorities and withdraw the amount. He places reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Others, etc., (2020) 8 SCC 129, in contending that once the compensation amount has been deposited, then Section 24 of the new Act will not apply.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to go through the said judgment.
3. List as fresh on 10.8.2023."
3. On matter being taken up today, Sri Shyam Sunder, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would not apply in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. Etc., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the amount, which is in deposit in treasury along with interest. In support of his submission, he places reliance on paragraph 230 of the aforesaid judgment in the Indore Development Authority (supra), which is as follows:
"230. Deposit in treasury in place of deposit in court causes no prejudice to the landowner or any other stakeholder as their interest is adequately safeguarded by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act of 1894, as it ensures higher rate of interest than any other Government securities. Their money is safe and credited in the earmarked quantified amount and can be made available for disbursement to him/them. There is no prejudice caused and every infraction of law would not vitiate the act. "
5. Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and learned Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State have no objection to the same.
6. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned officer for release of amount, which is said to be in deposit in treasury. The amount will be released in favour of the petitioner after due verification along with interest, if any.
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Noman
