Allahabad High Court
Indrapal Singh And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 January, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:1125-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36909 of 2023
Petitioner :- Indrapal Singh And 10 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation to them for having taken over their land for widening of ring-road. They have also prayed for an enquiry being held against Government Officials who have been responsible for taking possession the land of the petitioners in a high-handed manner without any formal acquisition or payment of compensation.
2. It is pertinent to note that District Level Committee by order dated 22 January 2020 has already determined the compensation amount payable to the petitioners, however, the said order was not being honoured by the State. Consequently, on 09.11.2023, a Coordinate Bench passed the following order:-
"1. The District Level Committee has examined the claim of the petitioners and has returned a specific finding that the land of the petitioners had got affected by construction of ring road and he is entitled to compensation therefor.
2. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel invited our attention to a communication dated 01.09.2023 and contends that there is confusion with the State-respondents as to whether payment should be made or not.
3. Having regard to the facts of the case and the submission made, we direct the second respondent to file his personal affidavit and disclose his stand and also why payment of compensation has not been made to the petitioners till date despite the order of the District Level Committee.
4. Put up as fresh on 01.12.2023.
5. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate the instant order to respondent no. 2 for due compliance."
3. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed his affidavit and wherein the stand taken was that subsequently on 20 March 2023, the order of District Level Committee dated 22 January 2020 was recalled on the ground that the land of the petitioners was utilized long back in the year 2011 without any objection.
4. After hearing the parties at some length, another order was passed on 12.12.2023 which is reproduced below:-
"1. Respondent No. 2 has filed his personal affidavit in compliance of our previous order. He has taken the stand that the order passed by the District Level Committee dated 22.01.2020 recommending payment of compensation to the affected farmers was got reviewed by order dated 20.03.2023 on the ground that the land was utilized long back in the year 2011 without any objection from the tenure holders and therefore, there was implied consent and surrender of their right, title or interest in the land.
2. The respondents have not brought on record any written consent. The Supreme Court in recent judgment in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 799; Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 508 and judgement dated 26.4.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 3189 of 2022 Kalyani (Dead) through LRs & others vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and others has held that in absence of any written consent, the State cannot decline to grant compensation to the person whose land has been taken over by it for any public purpose. Consequently, we do not accept the stand now taken in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 and direct the State-respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the decision of the District Level Committee dated 20.01.2020 within four weeks from today or show cause by filing affidavit as to why this Court should not treat the default as deliberate violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
3. List as fresh on 2 January 2024.
4. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel will communicate the instant order to the concerned respondents for immediate compliance."
5. In compliance of the above order, the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Amroha (respondent No. 3) has filed his affidavit and wherein the respondents have taken the stand that they are ready to pay compensation to the petitioners as determined by the District Level Committee. It is further stated in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the affidavit that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was sanctioned, out of which Rs.19,07,250/- has already been disbursed to the petitioners as compensation. In para-9 of the affidavit, it is stated that the department has raised demand for sanction of the remaining amount and has given an assurance that as soon as amount is sanctioned, it would be disbursed to the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that the petitioners have received part payment of the compensation amount.
7. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents reiterated that remaining amount would be paid to the petitioners as soon as financial approval is granted by the State and the amount is allocated to the department.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid stand of the State-respondents, we dispose of the instant petition by directing the respondents to make payment of the balance amount of compensation to the petitioners within six weeks from today.
9. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel will communicate the instant order to the concerned Government Officials for due compliance.
Order Date :- 4.1.2024
Mukesh Kr.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,A.C.J.)
