Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3147 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Pratap Singh,Ashish Agrawal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
The petitioner herein claimed that his bhoomidhari land though had been acquired vide acquisition notifications issued on 17.12.1986 and 25.04.1987 under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively; and award dated 13.04.1989 has been declared under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, but neither the possession of the land in question has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
In various paragraphs of the writ petition, it is sought to be submitted that the name of the petitioner has been retained in the revenue records and suddenly a letter dated 15.10.2022 was received by the petitioner wherein it was directed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer by respondent No. 4 to expunge the entry of the name of the farmers from the revenue record. Another letter dated 25.10.2022 in compliance thereof had been issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalaun at Orai to the Tehsildar Orai stating therein that the entry of the name of U.P. Industrial Development Corporation Limited, namely, respondent No. 4 be entered in the revenue record.
At this stage, the petitioner had approached the Competent Authority, namely, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalaun at Orai that the land belonging to the petitioner had neither been acquired nor had been purchased by consent though acquisition notification was issued on 17.12.1986/25.04.1987. It is further stated that even after expiry of period of the 35 years of declaration of notification, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner nor sale-deed had been executed.
Noticing the above stand of the petitioner in the representation moved by him before the Competent Authority, we are required to note the contents of the letter dated 15.10.2022, the list of the tenure holders to whom compensation had been paid for the acquired land is appended along with the letter dated 15.10.2022, copy of which is appended as Annexure '3' to the paper book. A perusal thereof indicates that the name of the petitioner finds place in the list of the tenure holders at serial No. 24 to whom compensation was paid by Voucher No. AO/17763 dated 22.08.1989 for an amount of Rs. 15137.14.
Sri Ashish Agarwal learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4 categorically states that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the acquired land and his possession over the land in question cannot be justified by the assertion that no actual physical possession of the land in question has been taken by the acquiring body.
Noticing the above facts and the averments in the writ petition, we are required to note that the recognized mode of transfer of possession of the acquired land is by drawing a possession memo or panchnama under the scheme of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and with the same, the land stands vested in the State. In the instant case, it is evident that the petitioner not only had received compensation for the acquired land in the year 1989 but retained illegal and unauthorized possession of the acquired land which was transferred to the beneficiary much earlier.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner based on the revenue entries, is of no relevance.
The issue in this regard has also been considered by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 wherein it is held that after transfer of possession by preparation of possession memo, the lands vests with the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The possession of the tenure holder or any third party over the acquired land would then be of only an unauthorized occupant. No benefit can be derived by the tenure holder or a third party for the fact that he remained in the actual physical possession of the acquired land.
In the present case, as noted above, the petitioner has received compensation under the award declared on 13.04.1989. In the said scenario, the claim of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, prayer made by the petitioner is untenable in view of the declaration of law by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra).
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as misconceived.
It may be noted that the petitioner has made a false averment in the writ petition about non-receipt of compensation and has utilized the entire machinery of this Court with misconceived information. In view of said fact, for wasting the precious judicial time of this Court. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to dismiss the writ petition with the cost which is computed to the tune of Rs. 10,000. The cost imposed upon the petitioner shall be deposited within a period of two weeks from today before the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.
Before parting with this judgment, we may observe that it is open for the U.P.S.I.D.C. to take appropriate measures for removal of encroachment/unauthorized occupation of the petitioner over the acquired land and it is incumbent upon the State Authorities to expunge the entry of the name of the petitioner from the revenue record and enter the name of the U.P.S.I.D.C.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Rajesh
