Allahabad High Court
Rama Kant Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95118-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36496 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rama Kant Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Singh Rathaur,Ganesh Mani,Pravesh Kumar,Shiv Kumar Yadav,Siddharth Rai,Vikas Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17580 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ramakant Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Singh Rathaur,Ganesh Mani,Pravesh Kumar,Shiv Kumar Yadav,Siddharth Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Rishi Upadhyay holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3-Avas Vikas Parishad (in short "Parishad").
2. Writ Petition No.36496 of 2019 has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.3 to make measurement and demarcation of Plot No.1232 area 0.113 Hect. Naubasta Kanpur Nagar within stipulated period.
3. Writ Petition No.17580 of 2017 has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the grievance of the petitioner regarding betterment charges of the land in question in pursuance of notice dated 19.12.2014 issued by respondent no.4 within stipulated period.
4. Since the facts involved in both the writ petitions are similar and relates to same petitioner, with the consent of parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
5. The petitioner claims that plot no.1232 area 0.113 hect. situated at Village Naubasta, Tehsil and Distt. Kanpur Nagar was purchased by his father vide registered sale deed dated 2.2.1968. The said plot was acquired in the year 1975 in favour of Awas Vikas Parishad. The Awas Vikas Parishad in its meeting dated 24.12.2016 had passed a resolution for releasing the land acquired, which also included the land of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner was that inspite of the aforesaid resolution, the land in question was not physically handed over to the petitioner. Such situation had impelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of preferring Writ-C No.43147 of 2016 (Rama Kant Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was disposed of on 14.9.2016 with following observations:-
"Plot No.1232 was acquired in the year 1975 in favour of respondent no.2. In its meeting dated 24th December, 2016 a resolution was passed for releasing the land acquired, which also included land of the petitioner. Inspite of this resolution, physical possession of the land has not been handed over to the petitioner, inspite of his request in writing.
Sri S.K. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 states that physical possession of the land could not be handed over to the petitioner on account of encroachment made by certain persons on the land and that they have made request from the district administration but on account of held being not provided to them, the land is not being handed over to the petitioner.
Be that as it may. Once a resolution has been passed for releasing the land, it is the responsibility of the respondent nos.2 to 4 to give back possession. For this purpose, whatever help is required from the District Magistrate should be taken and if necessary police force should be deployed after depositing the requisite fee.
We, accordingly, dispose of the matter directing respondent no.2 to take adequate steps and ensure that physical possession of the land of the petitioner is given to him within six weeks from today."
6. Once the aforesaid order was not complied with, the petitioner had preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No.6438 of 2016 (Ramakant Gupta v. Sri Rudra Pratap Singh & Anr.), which was decided on 16.2.2017 with following observations:-
"Counter affidavit to the compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record.
In compliance of the order passed by the writ Court, the opposite parties were required to hand over the possession of the land to the applicant. The possession memo dated 25 October 2016 have been brought on record which has been duly acknowledged and signed by the applicant on 13 December 2016 after the land in dispute was given possession to the applicant free from all encumbrances.
The document brought on record is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant.
In the circumstances, in my opinion, order of the writ Court stands complied.
The contempt petition is consigned to record.
Notices, if any, issued stand discharged."
7. It is contended that though the respondents have removed the encroachment over the land in question and handed over the possession of the vacant land to the petitioner but till date the petitioner could not get the actual physical possession over the same in absence of any demarcation and measurement of the said land.
8. It is also contended that the respondent had issued notice dated 19.12.2014 as well as letter dated 3.9.2015 to deposit betterment charges as well as interest thereon of the aforesaid land. It is submitted that once the petitioner has got the possession of the said land in the year 2016, hence the notice dated 19.12.2014 as well as letter dated 3.9.2015 claiming betterment charges since 2013 as well as interest thereon is not sustainable.
9. Learned counsel for Parishad, on the other hand, states that recently he has received instructions to file his memo of appearance in the matter and as such some further time may be accorded so that appropriate instructions may be placed on record.
10. Considering the factual aspect of the matter, we find that inspite of resolution dated 24.12.2016, Division Bench order dated 14.9.2016 and Contempt Court order dated 16.2.2017, the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed as yet and as such we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration.
11. With the consent of parties, we dispose of both the writ petitions asking respondent no.3 to redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and in case it is required, he may take assistance from local administration so that the grievance of the petitioner qua actual physical possession may be redressed in letter and spirit. So far as the grievance of the petitioner qua betterment charges as well as interest thereon are concerned, the same shall be looked into, examined and redressed by respondent no.4 in accordance with law but certainly after verifying the relevant record and looking to the fact that when the actual physical possession was given to the petitioner. The said exercise is to be carried out within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
SP/
