Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no.1 to 6 and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent no.7.
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers :-
"a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent's authorities to ensure compliance of the order dated 7/04/2016 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut affirmed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgement and order dated 17/08/2016 (Contained in Annexure no.8 and 10 to this writ petition).
b. And/or issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to make payment of compensation in favour of petitioners, as per Market rate of present value and applicable in new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Right to Fair Competition and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
c. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent authorities to release the amount of the compensation with penal interest along with current market rate to the petitioners as per rule."
The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that a piece of land situated at Khasra No.92 area 6 Bishwa Pukhta and 93 area 7 Bishwa Pukhta i.e. total Khasra 2 nos. and area 13 Bishwa Pukhta situated at Village-Gunpura, Pargana-Dankaur, Tehsil-Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred as disputed land) was proposed for allotment for the purpose of cultivation in favour of land less agriculturists and eligible persons by the Land Management Committee of Village-Gunpura. In this regard a resolution dated 4.12.1990 was passed after the due procedure prescribed under law.
The aforesaid resolution was duly approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshahar vide its order dated 31.8.1991 and physical cultivatory possession was delivered and relevant entries were also made in the revenue record through agricultural patta (lease) in favour of the petitioners and petitioners started use of the land for agriculture purpose.
The aforesaid allotment was objected by newly elected Village Pradhan and in this regard he filed a case being Case No.94, under Section 198 (4) of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 in the court of Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bulandshahar. The aforesaid complaint was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bulandshahar vide its order dated 30.7.1994. The allotment made in favour of the petitioners dated 4.12.1990 were cancelled and Tehsildar, Sikandrabad, was directed to allot the disputed land in favour of the eligible persons. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.7.1994 certain persons namely Jaipal and others filed a revision as provided under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the court of Commissioner. The said revision was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, vide its order dated 09.03.1998.
After the order dated 9.3.1998 was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by which the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back, Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioners vide its order dated 16.11.2015.
Against the order dated 16.11.2015 petitioners filed a revision being Revision No.12 of 2015-16 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The said revision was allowed and the order dated 16.11.2015 was set aside and the direction was given to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to restore the possession in favour of the petitioners.
During the pendency of the aforesaid revision subsequent allottees also filed impleadment application for their claim and rights on the basis of the alleged allotment. The revisional court vide its order dated 16.3.2016 rejected the impleadment application with the findings that applicants are subsequent allottees, therefore, they have no claim in the revision. Against the aforesaid order dated 16.3.2016 by which the impleadment applications were rejected a writ petition was preferred before this Court being Writ Petition No.32345 of 2016 (Satpal and 3 others Vs. Additional Commissioner Meerut Division and 122 others) before this Court with the prayer to set aside the order dated 16.3.2016. The writ petition filed by the subsequent allottees were dismissed by this Court vide its judgement and order dated 17.8.2016.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that order passed by the revisional court has attained finality. It is further contended that during pendency of the dispute pertaining to the land allotted to the petitioners a notification was issued by the State Government on 4.4.2009 in order to acquire the aforesaid land in favour of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority for the purpose of industrial development. It is further contended that the petitioners are entitled for compensation pursuant to the aforesaid notification but wholly illegally no compensation whatsoever has been paid by the respondents. After knowing the aforesaid resumption proceedings, petitioners along-with other claimants submitted their representations/applications along-with affidavit before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, on 14.9.2016 and on the aforesaid representation proceedings were initiated. Since no decision was taken hence petitioners submitted fresh applications in the shape of reminder before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 16.1.2019. It is contended that although the land of the petitioners was acquired by the State Government, the authority concerned instead of providing compensation to the petitioners, deposited the same in the account of District Magistrate/S.L.A.O. It is further contended that amount of compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioners and in order to release the amount of compensation the petitioners also made several representations to the various authorities on 28.2.2019. Since no action was taken on the aforesaid applications, reminders were also made by the petitioners on 26-27/3/2019. It is contended that the respondent authorities unlawfully occupied the land in dispute and after the possession was delivered to the authority they have allotted the land in dispute to the several builders. It is further contended that although the petitioners are the allottees of their land, after the said land was acquired by the State Government they became entitled for the compensation. Since no compensation was paid to the petitioners they preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus commanding the authorities to ensure compliance of the order dated 17.8.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut with further prayer to direct the authorities to make payment of compensation in favour of the petitioners at market rate.
This Court vide its order dated 5.7.2019 granted time to respondents to file their counter affidavit. The matter was directed to be listed on 21.8.2019. Since no counter affidavit was filed matter was again directed to be put up on 22.8.2019 along-with other connected matters. When the matter was taken up on 22.8.2019 it is contended by the counsel for the respondent that they have no objection in case mandamus is issued to the concerned competent authority to pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
From perusal of the record, it is clear that the land situated at Khasra Nos. 92 area 6 Bishwa Pukhta and 93 area 7 Bishwa Pukhta i.e. total Khasra 2 nos. and area 13 Bishwa Pukhta was allotted in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of cultivation. The aforesaid allotment was made by the Land Management Committee of Village-Gunpura vide its resolution dated 4.12.1990. The aforesaid resolution was also approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar vide its order dated 31.8.1991. Thereafter complaints were made by several villagers, which were allowed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) on 30.7.1994. Against the aforesaid order a revision was preferred by certain persons, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 09.3.1998 and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue). Thereafter, Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar passed another order dated 16.11.2015 rejecting the claim set up by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order a fresh revision was preferred by the petitioners, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, vide his order dated 7.4.2016. In the meanwhile, as stated above certain subsequent allottees filed their applications for impleadment. The said applications for impleadment were rejected by the revisional court vide its order dated 16.3.2016. Against the aforesaid order writ petition being Writ Petition No.32345 of 2016 was filed by Satpal and 3 others before this Court. This Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the subsequent allottees vide its judgement and order dated 17.8.2016.
During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings resumption proceedings were started and a notification in this regard was issued by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 4.4.2009. The land was notified for resumption by the State Government in favour of Yamuna Expressway Development Authority for the purpose of industrial development. After the orders were passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, in favour of the petitioners on 16.3.2016 the representations were submitted by the petitioners before the authority from time to time either to return the physical possession of the land to the petitioners or to make the payment of compensation to them but no decision has been taken on the same hence petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion the grievance of the petitioners can be looked into by the authorities concerned at the first instance.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, present writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioners to make a fresh representation ventilating all their grievances before the District Magistrate/Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar/respondent no. 3 along-with certified copy of this order. If such a representation is filed, the respondent No.3 is directed to pass appropriate order on the same, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of representation along-with certified copy of this order.
Needless to say that if it is found that the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation, the same should be paid to the petitioners within two months thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Swati