Allahabad High Court
Praveen Rajput And 2 Others vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40100 of 2022
Petitioner :- Praveen Rajput And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
The personal affidavit of the Executive Engineer, UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Construction Division, filed today in compliance of the order dated 16.02.2023 is taken on record.
It is demonstrated in the affidavit filed today that the petitioners were pursuing two parallel proceedings one before the Executive Engineer, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another before the Housing Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad at the Head Office. The details of various communications between the petitioners and the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad namely the Executive Engineer and the Head Office have been given in para '8' of the personal affidavit. It is demonstrated before us that the copy of the judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 passed by this Court relegating the petitioners to make representation had been served along with the letter dated 01.08.2022 upon the Executive Engineer, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. Pursuant thereto, a letter dated 01.08.2022 was issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, which is appended at page no.'32' of the writ petition, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Executive Engineer on 10.08.2022. It is further categorically stated that the petitioner did not appear on various dates fixed by the Executive Engineer to place his grievances.
So far as the letter dated 01.08.2022, which is appended at page no.'45' of the personal affidavit filed today is concerned, it is demonstrated that the same was sent in response to the letter dated 25.07.2022 written by the petitioners to the Commissioner, Avas, Head Office, Lucknow, copy of which is appended at page no.'43' of the paper book. A perusal thereof indicates that the copy of the judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 had not been appended with the said letter.
The observations made by this Court in the order dated 16.02.2023 with regard to two letters dated 01.08.2022 written by the Executive Engineer to the petitioner, therefore, stood explained.
As regards the claim of the petitioners for release of their lands in their favour, it is pertinent to note that the acquisition of the land-in-question had been completed with the making of the award dated 10.11.1982, in continuance to the notifications dated 10.03.1973 and 27.08.1980 published under Section 28 and 32 of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act. Though it is stated in the writ petition that neither the petitioner nor their grandfather had received compensation for the acquired land, but the date of the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, has not been indicated in the writ petition. The record of rights showing the entry in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has also not been appended with the writ petition.
It is, thus, difficult to accept that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner did not receive compensation pursuant to the award dated 10.11.1982 and the amended award dated 12.09.1984. We may note that the dispute was raised by the petitioner for the first time by filing a writ petition in the year 2022 wherein the order dated 15.07.2022 has been passed relegating the petitioners to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievances.
Further statement in the present writ petition is that the petitioners had deposited Rs.50,000/- towards processing fee in favour of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Kanpur Nagar on 04.09.2021. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the processing fee has been accepted, the claim of the petitioner for allotment of developed plot/release of land, which was acquired in the year 1973 and 1980, could not have been rejected.
We find fallacy in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the fact that the application dated 25.06.2021 moved by the petitioner for allotment of developed plot/release of acquired land had been considered in view of the decision of Housing Commissioner (Land), which is dated 25.05.2022 addressed to the Executive Engineer Construction Division, Kanpur Nagar, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Kanpur Nagar. It is categorically directed in the letter of the Housing Commissioner that the Executive Engineer was required to remove all unauthorised occupants from the acquired lands of Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
This decision of the Housing Commissioner, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has been duly intimated to the petitioner while disposing of his representation vide order dated 24.08.2022 in compliance of the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by this Court. A copy of the order dated 24.8.2022 is appended at page no.'49' of the personal affidavit filed today.
Further, in the order impugned dated 24.08.2022, it is categorically recorded that the grandfather of the petitioner namely Gajodhar s/o Maiku had received compensation for the acquired land in Gata No.7 area 1-16-0 (half of his share) in the month of March, 1984. The Form-11 showing the proof of receiving of the compensation by the grandfather of the petitioner has also been appended at page no.'34' of the personal affidavit.
Be that as it may, having noted above, we do not find any good ground to entertain the challenge to the decision of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The release of the acquired land merely on the ground that the petitioner has deposited certain non refundable processing fee for consideration of his claim for allotment of developed plot, cannot be directed. In any case, the possession of the petitioners over the land-in-question is of unauthorised occupants. They cannot seek to retain possession of the acquired land merely on the ground that they remained in actual physical possession of the land for a long time. The contention that the land-in-question is not being developed is also found misconceived.
For the above noted reasons, we do not find merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
P Kesari
