Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31752 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Nath Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashok Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.3.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice need not to be issued to the respondent no.4.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to command the Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (F & R), District Ghazipur-respondent no. 3 to disburse the compensation to him for acquisition of land comprising of Plot No.1248 situate in village Fatehullahpur, Pargana and District Ghazipur. Another relief claimed is mandamus to command the said respondent to decide his representations dated 4.5.2019 and 6.6.2019.
Admittedly, the said land is a subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). Notification under Section 3-A of the Act was issued on 15.1.2015 and that under Section 3-D(2) of the Act was published on 30.11.2015. The petitioner purchased the said land from the erstwhile owner by means of registered sale deed dated 29.10.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner he is entitled to be paid compensation for the said land.
It is well settled proposition of law by judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court that purchaser of the land subsequent to initiation of the acquisition proceedings has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings but certainly he is a person interested in the compensation.
Reference may be made to the decision of the apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133 wherein it has been held as under:
"18. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title."
The same view has been reiterated in a recent decision of the apex Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and another, (2017) 6 SCC 751.
In view of the settled law on the subject, subsequent purchaser is a person interested only to the extent of making a claim of compensation of the land, subject matter of acquisition.
In view of above, right of compensation being claimed by the petitioner is worthy of being considered. However, since the issue involves adjudication into a question of fact, we feel appropriate that the fact finding authority may consider the claim of the petitioner at the initial stage.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 fairly state that the claim made by the petitioner which is pending before the respondent no.3 shall be considered expeditiously.
In view of above, we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent no.3, Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur to consider the representations dated 4.5.2019 and 6.6.2019 made by the petitioner, pending before him in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
We make it clear that we have not entered into merit of the case and the same shall be considered by the concerned authority on its own fact independently.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Pramod Tripathi