Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Thru. Mini. Of Road ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3132 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Thru. Mini. Of Road ... on 8 January, 2025

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1448-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1348 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Mini. Of Road Transport Highways Thru. Its Project Director And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Pathak,Sharad Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anshumali Srivastava,Abhishek Pathak,C.S.C.,Krishna Lal Yadav,Mayank Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Heard.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act, 1956') declining the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation in respect to land forming part of Gata No.941 measuring 0.1408 hectare situated at village-Ahimamu, Tehsil- Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the aforesaid land along with other lands were notified for acquisition on 07.03.2013 under Section 3 D of 1956. The competent authority determined the compensation payable vide his order dated 21.07.2016. At that point of time, the said land was recorded in the name of private opposite party nos.5 to 11, a fact which is not in dispute. The petitioner purchased the land forming part of Gata No.941 measuring 0.164 hectares from opposite party nos.5 to 11 and his name was mutated in respect of the said land vide order dated 15.10.2016. An application was filed by the petitioner claiming compensation in respect of the land purchased by him, however, the same was referred by the competent authority to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956. The competent authority rendered its decision on 21.12.2019 which was in favour of the petitioner. However, the competent authority even after being informed about the said decision of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction referred in Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956 did not accept the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 12.03.2020 and declined the claim of the petitioner on the ground that land had vested in the government once the acquisition notification dated 07.03.2013 had been published. He relied upon Section 3 D(2) and (4) of the Act, 1956. Once the competent authority has referred the matter for decision by Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction then whatever decision is taken by the said court is binding upon the said authority and it is not open for him to sit in judgment over the said decision. However, we do not proceed in this regard any further because the legal position in this regard came to be considered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of 'Sursati vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' Writ-C No.30608 of 2018 decided on 05.09.2022 wherein it has been held that if the land is purchased prior to award/ order by the competent authority then the purchaser would be entitled to compensation but if it is purchased after the award then the subsequent purchaser would not be entitled to claim any compensation but would have remedy under common law to claim damages or any other amount from his vendor. However, after filing of this petition, an order order was passed by this Court on 18.03.2024 which reads as under:-

"1. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for private respondents submit that there are strong probability to settlement between the parties, therefore, the matter be sent for medication and conciliation centre of this Court for amicably settlement between the parties

3. In view of the above, let the matter be remitted to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court with the direction that the Mediation Centre shall conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously after giving notices to both the parties.

4. It is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for mediation with private respondents on 03.04.2024.

5. List along with report of Mediation Centre."

4. As is evident from the aforesaid order, the matter for referred to mediation as the Khatedars i.e. vendors were already parties in this petition as opposite party nos.5 to 11. Mediation proceedings have been completed and agreement has been arrived at between the petitioner i.e. the subsequent purchaser and the vendors i.e. opposite party nos.5 to 11 by which private opposite parties who are second party in the agreement have agreed that compensation of the land in question acquired for National Highway Authority of India-opposite party no.12 in Writ C No.1348 of 2022 [Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.] (this writ petition) be given to the first party, namely, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Dhan Pati Singh. Parties to the agreement have agreed that they shall not have any objections if the Hon'ble Court decides Writ-C No.1348 of 2022 in term of the said settlement/ agreement. Petitioner herein is first party of the agreement and opposite party nos.5 to 11 are second party. The said agreement reads as under:-

"This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 09.05.2024, Between Mithilesh Kumar Singh S/O Dhan Pati Singh, R/O 13/1/30, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (First Party)

and

I. Piyush Kumar Srivastava S/O Late Banwari Lal Srivastava, R/O 289/3 Bihari Bhawan Moti Nagar, Lucknow,

II. Mayank Kumar S/O Late Banwari Lal Srivastava, R/O 289/3 Bihari Bhawan Moti Nagar, Lucknow

III. Atul Kumar Srivastava, age adult, S/o Banwari Lal Srivastava, R/o 289/3 Bihari Bhawan Moti Nagar Lucknow,

IV. Laxmi Srivastava, aged about 69 years, W/o Vinod Kumar Srivastava, R/o 259/16 Itki mohalla aishbagh, Rajendranagar, Lucknow,

V. Renuka Kamathan, aged about 68 years, W/o Anil Kamathan, R/o Cantonament road, Mahavir Apartment Cant road, Lucknow,

VI. Rachna Kamathan, aged about 56 years, W/o Sunil Kamathan, R/o P-100 Nehru Inkalev, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow,

VII. Pratima Sahai @ Pratibha Sahai, aged about 67 years, W/o Ram Ji Sahai, R/o 531/71, Bhinda Tola, Bara Chand Ganj, Aliganj, Lucknow,

(collectively, hereinafter, referred to as Second Party).

WHEREAS

1. Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto and WRIT-C No. 1348 of 2022 (Mithilesh Kumar Singh & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others) was filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, sitting at Lucknow.

2. The matter was referred to Mediation/Conciliation, vide an order dated 18.03.2024, passed by the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla.

3. The parties agreed that Mr. Ram Raj, Advocate and Mr. Deepanshu Das, Advocate would act as their Mediators/Conciliators.

4. Several meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation and the parties have, with the assistance of the Mediators/ Conciliators, voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving all their disputes and differences.

5. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement, in the presence of the Mediator/Conciliator and there is no coercion or undue influence on either of the parties of any kind whatsoever in arriving at this settlement agreement.

6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

A. That earlier the Second Party had sold the land to the petitioner bearing Khatauni No.941, measuring area about 1640 sq. mt. /0.164 hect., from a total area measuring about a 0.343 hect. Situated at Village - Ahimamau, Pargana Lucknow, Tehsil -Sarojini Nagar, District - Lucknow, for a consideration amount of 3,63,00,000/- (Three Crores Sixty Three Lacs only) through the registered sale deed dated 03/08/2016. All the parties comprising of Second Party have agreed that the compensation shall be paid to the First Party for the aforementioned acquired land in question and no claim will be raised by the Second Party in future.

B. That the Second Party has categorically agreed that compensation of the land in question acquired for National Highway Authority of India/ Opposite Party No.12 in WRIT-C No. 1348 of 2022 (Mithilesh Kumar Singh & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others) be given to the First Party namely Mithilesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Dhan Pati Singh.

C. That the parties have mutually agreed that they shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble Court decides the WRIT-C No. 1348 of 2022 (Mithilesh Kumar Singh & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others) in terms of this settlement agreement.

D. In addition to above mentioned case, if any other case(s) is pending between the parties, named above, related to the present dispute, the parties shall not have any objection if the case(s) is disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement.

E. That it is also agreed between the parties that henceforth no case shall be instituted by them against each other or any of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of present case/dispute with regard to payment of the compensation.

F. That both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Court, henceforth shall be liable for contempt of Court proceeding.

7. By Signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claim(s) or demand(s) against each other with respect to the matter involved in WRIT-C No. 1348 of 2022 (Mithilesh Kumar Singh & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

5. Though, ordinarily, in view of the Full Bench decision, we would not have entertained the petition but would have relegated him to the remedy of civil court but considering the fact that in pursuance to our order dated 18.03.2024 quoted above, mediation has already taken place and parties have agreed in the aforesaid terms, we are of the opinion that the petitioner herein is entitled to compensation payable in respect of the land acquired and purchased by the petitioner as already referred hereinabove which would otherwise have been payable to opposite party nos.5 to 11. In view of this agreement, there is no dispute between the petitioner and opposite party nos.5 to 11, therefore, we cannot relegate the petitioner to the remedy before the civil court. We, therefore, quash the impugned order and direct the competent authority to pay the amount of compensation determined by him to the petitioner in respect of the land in question in terms of what has been noticed hereinabove. We make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any manner nor would it be treated as an opinion regarding entitlement of subsequent purchasers who have purchased the land after the award, to seek compensation. We have passed this order in the facts as stated hereinabove. We make it clear that petitioner would be entitled to compensation only with respect of the land forming part of Gata No.941 purchased by him from Khatedars i.e. opposite party nos.5 to 11 vide sale deed dated 03.08.2016.

6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 8.1.2025

Shanu/-