Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sharda Devi vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh, Anish Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164275-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11176 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Sharda Devi
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Viveka Nand Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Mishra,Brijesh Kumar Shukla,C.S.C.,Vaibhav Tripathi
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Viveka Nand Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla alongwith Sri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2, and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.3.
2. Having heard counsels for the parties and having perused the record it transpires that petitioner had entered into agreement to purchase a portion of Plot No. 994, in Midhakur, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Agra, from one Sri Abhay Sigh. Certain disputes may have arisen between those parties. Accordingly, they failed to execute any sale deed. Consequently, the petitioner appears to have filed civil suit being Original Suit No. 282/2010 (Smt. Sharda Devi vs. Abhay Singh). That suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated 06.12.2014, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Agra. Certain appeal proceedings were instituted by the judgment, however, no stay order may have been passed in such proceedings. In the execution of the decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, sale deed came to be executed by the Court on 10.11.2017. It is still intact.
3. Considering the above, the reasoning given by the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Agra, appears to be patently erroneous inasmuch perusal of that order only indicates existence of disputes between the petitioner and the private parties i.e., namely Abhay Singh.
4. The learned Additional District Magistrate has clearly failed to take note of the fact of that suit proceedings having been decreed in favour of the petitioner and consequently sale deed was also executed in its compliance. Mere pendency of an appeal without any interim order passed therein may not offer any restraint on the payment to which the petitioner may have become entitled upon such land or portion thereof being acquired. As to the terms of security etc., the issue may have been examined to require the petitioner to offer some security or indemnity in the event of success in review appeal, by the other side.
5. At present, it is also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Abhay Singh is no more and the appeal proceeding has abated. While we do not propose to make any observation as to the status of the appeal proceedings, in so far as vital facts have remained to be examined, by the respondent no.3, the order impugned dated 22.02.2023 may never be sustained. Accordingly, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter, at this stage.
6. Sri Brijesh Kumar has stated that the entire acquisition cost has been deposited by the respondent nos.1 & 2 with respondent no.3.
7. The impugned order is set-aside and the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after issuing due notice to all necessary parties. Here, it may be clarified that we have not adjudicated the disputes on merits and, therefore, no part of this order may be treated to be binding by respondent no.3 while passing a fresh order, on the merit of the case. Such exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (S.D. Singh,J.)
