Allahabad High Court
Smt.Nirmala Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.Through ... on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6896 of 2005
Petitioner :- Smt.Nirmala Devi And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prn.Secy.Avas And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- U.S.Sahai,Ajmal Khan,Anurag Shukla,Atul Kumar Dubey,O.P. Srivastava,Prashant Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajai Kumar Singh,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.
This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
" a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of notifications dated 04.12.1999, 11.12.1999, 18.12.1999 and 21.07.2004 issued under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965 so far in it relates to plots of the petitioners in Khasra Plot No. 2659, Khata No. 444 in Village Haibatmau Mawaiya, Pargana: Bijnore, Tehsil and District Lucknow.
b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to evict the petitioners from their respective plots and houses over Khasra Plot No. 2659, Khata No. 444 in Village Kaibatmau Mawaiya and not to demolish the construction existing over the plots in dispute;
c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to review their policy for the development of the area and consequent acquisition for different purposes including the road widening and then proceed according to law."
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 that after issuance of notification under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1965) on 04.12.1999, objections were invited. The petitioners had filed their objections on 22.02.2000 saying that they had bought certain portion of Plot No. 2659 admeasuring 2100 sqft out of 8400 sqft through registered sale deed from one Ram Prasad-the recorded tenure holder on 19.02.1992 and had built their houses thereon and were residing therein, therefore residences situated at plot no. 2659 admeasuring 2100 sq. ft. be kept free from acquisition. The petitioners' objections were considered after On-spot inspection was done of the area in question on 04.08.2000 and it was rejected by the Niyojan Samiti on the same date.
The petitioners did not challenge such rejection order although under Section 32 (3) of the Act, 1965, they had remedy to challenge the same before the State Government within 30 days from the date of such rejection. It was found by the Niyojan Samiti that none of the petitioners was staying there, however, it was also found that the constructions were unauthorized and the same has been raised after issuance of the notification under Section 28 of the Act, 1965. Copy of the report of the Niyojan Samiti has been filed way back in November, 2006 by means of counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 and it was in the knowledge of the petitioner. The land stood finally acquired after issuance of declaration under Section 32 of the Act, 1965 and possession of the land was also delivered to the Parishad by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) on 11.11.2008 and interim/advance compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- i.e. 80% was also paid to the recorded tenure holder i.e. Ram Prasad on 13.06.2005. Thereafter, the A.D.M. (Land Acquisition) declared the award against the acquisition on 14.02.2019 in respect of this one Beegha land comprising Khasra No. 2659 and the payment would be made by the A.D.M. (Land Acquisition) after production of evidence by the concerned persons including the petitioners, if they approach him.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing at some length on the basis of various documents filed in his rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit and two supplementary affidavits filed thereafter regarding alleged similar case of other persons where the Board had reconsidered the decision of Niyojan Samiti and exempted the land of such persons from the Scheme, has prayed that similar benefit be given to the petitioners as well.
It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Nanhe Lal and another Vs. State of U.P. and others ( Writ Petition No. 3724 (LA) of 2019) that the petitioners therein had their land situated in the same Vrindawan Yojana-4 and the Court had directed the respondents to pass afresh orders on the basis of the recommendation of Committee made in the year 2015 and the Board's approval dated 2016 in favour of such petitioners.
Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 has argued that in the judgment rendered in the case of Nanhe Lal (supra) there were recommendation in favour of the petitioner therein by the Committee but in the case of the petitioners herein, the recommendations have not been made in favour of them and the recommendations have not been challenged by them before the State Government under Section 32 (3) of the Act, 1965.
This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the State Government under Section 32 (3) of the Act, 1965 within a period of two weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed, it shall be considered on merit and shall not be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. As and when, the appeal is filed, every endevour shall be made to decide it as early as possible.
Order Date :- 15.2.2023
Ashish
