Allahabad High Court
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad ... vs Adesh Kumar Agarwal And Others on 9 April, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20406
Court No. - 8
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2025
Applicant :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Construction Division Lko. Thru. Executive Engineer
Opposite Party :- Adesh Kumar Agarwal And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Alina Masoodi,Gaurav Mehrotra,Piyush Kumar Agarwal
With
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 35 of 2025
Applicant :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Construction Division, Lko. Thru. Executive Engineer
Opposite Party :- Adesh Kumar Agarwal And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Alina Masoodi,Piyush Kumar Agarwal
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
The Review-Application (D) No. 35 of 2025 arises out of First Appeal No. 110 of 1984 whereas the Review-Application (D) No. 34 of 2025 arises out of First Appeal No. 111 of 1984. Since the issue involved in both the review-applications is one in the same, hence, both the review-applications are being decided by this common judgment.
The instant review-applications are also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that he does not wish to file any objections in writing against the application for condontion of delay or on the review-applications, however, he may be permitted to argue the matter.
In view of the aforesaid and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the applications for review along with the application seeking condonation of delay are being decided by means of this present judgment.
The submission of the learned counsel for the review-petitioners is that the instant appeal arise against an award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While the said appeal was pending, certain similar matters relating to compensation were also engaging the attention of the High Court and one of such matters namely in First Appeal No. 179 of 1988 came to be decided.
It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the land of the present appellants were also covered by the said judgment of the High Court passed in First Appeal No. 179 of 1988, hence, the appeal also came to be allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The learned counsel for the review-applicants submits that as far as the amount of compensation which is to be paid is not disputed, however, what has necessitated the filing of the review is the fact that the original appellant Sri R.C. Agrawal had died during pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs were brought on record.
Apart from Sri R.C.Agrawal, one Sri Santokh Singh was the appellant no. 2, however, none has come forward to claim compensation on his behalf, even though, the Reference Court had noticed that some land of Santokh Singh was also affected, hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, it is only the sons of Sri R.C.Agrawal who came forward claiming compensation while the daughter of Sri R.C.Agrawal was one of the heirs for which the review-applicants seek necessary directions/clarifications that either the entire amount be paid except the amount as payable to Sri Santokh Singh to the sons of Sri R.C.Agrawal and in case of any claim on behalf of the daughter of Sri R.C.Agrawal, the Parishad should remain indemnified.
It is for the said reason that the review-applications have been moved along with an application seeking condonation of delay which on account of the aforesaid circumstances has been filed and thus the delay may not come in the way of the review-applicants to get the order clarified so that its compliance can be made at the earliest.
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents in the review-application submits that the entire contention of the review-applicants is misconceived for the reason that while the First Appeal was pending and Sri R.C.Agrawal had expired, the substitution application was moved wherein it was clearly indicated that it is only the three sons of Sri R.C.Agrawal who be impleaded in place of the appellant no. 1 as Sri R.C. Agrawal had left his registered will in terms whereof the property in question was bequeathed only to his sons.
It is also urged that while the substitution application was moved in the appeal, it was clearly stated that Sri R.C. Agrawal left behind his three sons and a daughter namely Smt. Mala Agarwal. Ms. Mala Agarwal also did not contest rather she filed her affidavit accepting that her father Sri R.C. Agarwal had left his will bequeathing the property to her brothers and she also expressed her no objection in case the brothers alone were impleaded/substituted in place of Sri R.C.Agrawal.
Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel further submits that once these facts were already on record and Smt. Mala Agarwal had already filed her affidavit during the pendency of the first appeal then there was no clarification which was required. It is only that in order to delay the grant of compensation, the Parishad has filed the instant review-application.
It is also urged that the opposite parties have been running from pillar to post seeking the compensation and even before the Authorities a specific letter was given including by Smt. Mala Agarwal that the compensation amount be disbursed to her brothers and she has no objection yet the same is being lingered by filing the instant review-application that too with so much of delay.
It has further been pointed out that the record would indicate that there are letters by the Higher Authorities of the Parishad indicating that the compensation amount be disbursed at the earliest failing which the Parishad would be saddled with liability of interest which is not in the interest of the Parishad and despite the same, the matter is being lingered at the behest of the Authorities concerned.
It has also been urged that as far as the share of Santokh Singh is concerned, the opposite parties, i.e. the legal heirs of Sri R.C. Agrawal has never claimed the said compensation, thus, if the Parishad retains the compensation as payable to Santokh Singh or his heirs to that extent, the opposite parties do not have any objection.
It has also been pointed out that in the order dated 16.03.1984 passed by the Reference Court, it has clearly been indicated which of the plots, Sri R.C. Agarwal and Sri Santokh Singh would share the compensation half and half and which are the compensation exclusively for which Sri R.C. Agarwal alone will get the plots and therefore, this contention of the review-applicant that they require a clarification from the Court is also misconceived.
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the review-applications deserve to be dismissed.
The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.
Apparently, while the appeal was pending, C.M.A. No. 8477 of 2017 was moved to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased Ram Chandra Agrawal who was survived by his three sons and one daughter.
It was also stated that Sri R.C. Agarwal had left his will and Smt. Mala Agarwal who had also filed her separate original affidavit as Annexure No. 3 accepted the will of her father and that the compensation, if paid, only to her three brothers, she would have no objection.
It is in this view that the Court while allowing the substitution application had permitted only the three sons of Sri R.C. Agarwal to be impleaded. In such a situation, there was no occasion for the Parishad to have retained the compensation amount only on the ground that it required a clarification from the Court as to how the compensation is to be paid especially in context of the share of Smt. Mala Agarwal.
The Court had called for the records which has been placed before this Court by Sri Shubham Singh, Assistant Engineer, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and from the perusal of the record, it indicates that there are several letters which also includes a letter filed by Smt. Mala Agarwal where she clearly accepted her father's will and further indicated that in case if the compensation is paid to her brothers, she has no objection.
Once, such letters were available on record, there was no occasion for the Parishad to harbour any doubts regarding the payment of compensation.
The record further indicates that there are letters indicating the disbursal of the amount especially with the observations that in case if the amount is not paid at the earliest, the Parishad would have to suffer the payment of interest which will not be beneficial for the Parishad, however, the same has been ignored and at this late stage i.e. to say after 8 months of passing of the judgment, the review application has been moved and that too on frivilous grounds.
This Court finds that there was actually no dispute regarding the disbursal of the amount in so far as Sri R.C. Agrawal is concerned and the ground upon which the Parishad seeks review/clarification is apparently misconceived.
As far as the contention regarding the compensation of Sri Santokh Singh is concerned, even the said plea of the Parishad is baseless, inasmuch as, in the order passed by the Reference Court, in the operative portion, it has clearly been stated that Sri R.C. Agrawal alone would receive compensation for various plots which have been mentioned and in so far as certain other plots are concerned, in respect of those Sri R.C. Agarwal and Sri Santokh Singh would receive half share each. Once, there was such clarity in the reference order, it was most unbecoming of the Parishad to file the instant review/clarification especially when everything had been clearly mentioned in the Reference Order.
The learned counsel for the Parishad could not dispute the aforesaid fact that in the order passed by the Reference Court, in the operative portion, it has clearly been mentioned that the compensation in respect of certain plots would exclusively be payable to Sri R.C. Agrawal (now his three sons after substitution) and in respect of certain plots, 50% belonged to Sri R.C. Agrawal and the remaining 50% to Sri Santokh Singh.
This Court finds that the application for review is completely misconceived.
Before parting, it will be relevant to notice that the Parishad appears to have deliberately not paid the compensation as earlier there was an opinion indicating the payment to be made. Later, another opinion was sought which is not conducive to the provisions or the material on record.
Thus, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the review-applicants but is constrained to hold that the review-application filed is completely misconceived and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would have imposed cost but refrains from doing so but at the same time, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to observe that a copy of this order shall be placed before the Housing Commissioner, Avas evam Vikas Parishad who can examine the matter and also hold an inquiry that once an order passed by the High Court had not been challenged and had attained finality and there were letters indicating the disbursal of the amount then why the same was not paid within time as by not paying the amount in time, the Parishad saddled with increased payment of interest.
Since the Parishad would be paying the interest to the opposite parties and that too for the reasons that frivolous objections were raised and the matter remained pending and thereafter the review-application was filed, hence, for this excess payment of interest by the Parishad, an inquiry be held and whosoever is found responsible for putting the Parishad to the peril of excess interest, payable to the opposite parties, then such excess amount shall be recoverable from the said officials of Parishad found responsible.
Accordingly, both the review-applications are dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025/Asheesh/-
