Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6337 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gulab Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Harkauli,Sudeep Harkauli Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21 September 2017 and 4 November 2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra disposing the representations dated 26 June 2015 and 29 April 2017 filed by the petitioners.
The dispute in the present petition relates to Gata no. 430 measuring 0.415 Hectares. A portion of this plot measuring 690 Sq. mts. was acquired under the provision of the National Highways Act, 19561 for construction of the four lane Agra-Delhi National Highway No. 2 in 1995 and an award was made on 24 June 1996. Subsequently, 160 Sq. mts. of land situated in this Gata No. 430 was also acquired under the provisions of the Act in 2010 and the award was made on 24 February 2014.
The petitioner had earlier filed Writ-C No.- 30236 of 2015 which was disposed of on 22 May 2015 with the following directions:-
“The relief prayed for in the present writ petition has been confined to the demarcation of the part of the land holding of the petitioner which has been acquired for the purposes of widening of the national highway vis-a-vis the part of the land holding which has not been so acquired.
From the records of the present writ petition we find that a letter has been written by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Agra to the Pariyojna Nideshak dated 15.04.2015 for necessary demarcation being done.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Pariyojna Nideshak in turn has written a similar letter to the Additional District Magistrate. According to him the 1 The Act petitioner is being made to run from pillar to post by the two officers.
In the facts of the case we dispose of the present writ petition by providing that the District Magistrate, Agra shall ensure that necessary action on the application of the petitioner, in the matter of demarcation on the part of the land holding which has been acquired vis-a-vis that part which has not been acquired, is taken within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. A copy of the demarcated site plan be made available to the petitioner immediately thereafter.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Court, the petitioner filed a representation dated 4 June 2016. Demarcation was carried out and site plan was prepared on 10 June 2015. This was supplied to the petitioner by letter dated 25 June 2015 and the petitioner was informed that the Authority may require further 535 Sq. mts. of land, for which possession would be taken in accordance with the Circular dated 22 May 2014 that provides for settlement of negotiation.
The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation dated 27 July 2015 to the Authority stating that if the Authority requires further 535 Sq. mts. of land, then compensation should be determined on the basis of the existing circle rate.
The petitioner, however, filed another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.- 15223 of 2017 with a prayer that the representation filed by him on 26 June 2015 be decided. This petition was disposed of on 12 April 2017 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Agra to consider the grievance raised in the form of objection filed by the petitioner to the demarcated site plan and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The order is reproduced below:
“The grievance of the petitioner is that the actual area acquired on the spot is much more than what was proposed to be acquired and is against the map prepared for the acquisition purposes.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier also with the same grievance by filing Writ Petition No.30236 of 2015 which was disposed of by directing the District Magistrate, Agra to ensure necessary action on the application of the petitioner in the matter of demarcation. Further direction was that a copy of the demarcated site plan may be made available to the petitioner. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the demarcated site plan was made available to him totally belying the spot situation, an objection was filed on 26.6.2015, but till date the same has not been decided by the respondent no.4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the District Magistrate, Agra to consider the grievance raised in the form of objection filed by the petitioner to the demarcated site plan and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks' from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.”
To give effect to the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, a communication dated 2 May 2017 was sent to the Tahsildar, Agra and demarcation was actually carried out by the SDM, Sadar, Agra and the Project Director. Subsequently, a report was submitted and the order dated 21 September 2017 passed.
The petitioner, however, filed a contempt petition and, thereafter, direction was issued to the Tahsildar, Sadar to carry out a fresh demarcation. A report with the site plan was submitted on 2 November 2017, whereafter a fresh order dated 4 November 2017 was passed. These two orders dated 21 September 2017 and 4 November 2017 have been assailed in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is a discrepancy in the site plan dated 10 June 2015 that has been enclosed at page 34 to the writ petition and the site plan dated 2 November 2017 at page 61 to the writ petition in regard to the portion of the boundary wall. It is for this reason that the Court on 16 February 2018 directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, appearing for the National Highways Authority of India to seek instructions, particularly with regard to the two site plans.
Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India has made oral submissions on the basis of the instructions received from the Authority, while the learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the instructions dated 24 February 2018 submitted by the District Magistrate, Agra.
It transpires from the instructions placed by the learned Standing Counsel and the original records that have also been placed by the learned Standing counsel that "BW" marked in the site plan at page no. 34 of the writ petition is not there in the site plan contained original records. In this view of the matter, the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the site plan at page no. 34 shows the boundary wall situated after 2.10 meters of the land that was acquired in 2010, whereas in the site plan at page no. 61, the boundary wall is situated before 2.10 meters does not actually exist. In fact, the site plan at page no 61 indicates that the Authority proposes to acquire by private negotiation a further 535 Sq. mts.
What is also important to notice is that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27 July 2015 when the earlier site plan dated 10 June 2015 was made available to the petitioner. All that has been stated by the petitioner is that if the Authority acquires further 535 Sq. mts., then compensation should be determined at the prevailing circle rate. The orders passed by the District Magistrate, Agra do take into consideration the two site plans. It states that the petitioner has obtained compensation for the two acquisitions made in 1995 and 1996 by which, as noted above, 690 Sq. mts. and 160 Sq. mts. situated in Gata No. 430 were acquired. It also states that if the Authority acquires land in future then compensation shall be paid in accordance with the Policy Circular dated 22 May 2014. A site plan has also been enclosed with the order dated 4 November 2017.
If the petitioner disputes the demarcation proceedings, then petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of approaching the Commissioner under the provisions of Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 A. V. Singh (Dilip Gupta,J.) (Jayant Banerji,J.)