Allahabad High Court
Shree Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru ... on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22097 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shree Narayan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin./Addl.Chief Secy.Home Deptt.Lko Andors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar,Manoj Kumar Gupta,Rajesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
After hearing the matter at length, what comes out is that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of W.P. No. 4909 (MB) of 2006 (Shree Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), being aggrieved by the acquisition or take over of his land without payment of compensation. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 08.10.2013 with certain directions.
Being aggrieved, the State of U.P. filed a Special Leave Petition bearing C.C. No. 1120 of 2014. The SLP of the State was decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.03.2017. The judgment of the High Court was set aside. However, it was further held that the petitioner herein who was the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be entitled to compensation not under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but under the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013') and accordingly directions were issued to the State of U.P. to determine the compensation payable to the respondent in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. Needful was to be done at the administrative level within two months from the date of decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. 10.03.2017. In case, the respondent therein, who is the petitioner before us namely Shree Narayan Singh was dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the State of U.P., it was left open to the said respondent to assail the same by filing a reference petition in consonance with law.
In the interregnum that is after the decision of the High Court dated 08.10.2013 but before the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.03.2017, an award was prepared with respect to the land belonging to the petitioner herein on 01.04.2016, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition.
On a perusal of the said award, we find that the compensation has been determined in terms of the Act, 2013. However, it seems that this fact could not be brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
An application was made by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 on 26.08.2016 which was referred by the Collector to the District Judge on 30.12.2017. However, this was erroneous as under the Act, 2013, the matter was to be referred to the appropriate authority as defined in the Act, 2013. When the District Judge, Lucknow intimated this fact to the Collector, Lucknow then the Collector Lucknow corrected himself and sent the reference to the appropriate authority on 01.01.2021.
However, the appropriate authority has declined to register the reference on the report of its Registrar citing para 5 of the judgment dated 10.03.2017 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as according to it, first of all, the petitioner should have approached the State Government for determination of compensation under the Act, 2013 and thereafter, if he was aggrieved, he could move a reference under the Act, 2013. Accordingly, the reference has been held to be not maintainable.
Apparently, the confusion has arisen on account of the facts as already noticed by us i.e. the rendering of award dated 01.04.2016 not being brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court, at least, that is what appears on a reading of the said judgment and in absence of the said fact, the decision was rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as already referred.
The intent of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is very clear that compensation should be determined under the Act, 2013. This, in fact, had already been done on 01.04.2016. Therefore, merely on account of para 5 of the said judgment, the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority was not justified in not registering the reference. As the only reason given by the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority is not sustainable in view of what has been stated hereinabove, we accordingly quash the order dated 17.08.2021 and direct the Presiding Officer of the aforesaid authority to register the reference and thereafter take a decision on the maintainability of the reference on the question of limitation etc. and if he finds it to be otherwise maintainable, he shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Nitesh
