Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned cousnel for the petitioner and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned cousnel for the respondent no.5.
Petitioner by way of the present petition seeks the following reliefs;
"i) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of land comprising of Khasara No.484 admeasuring 0.0840 Hectares (1000 sy. yard) of revenue village Khoda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar;
ii) To issue any other order of direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;
iii) To award the cost of petition to this Petitioner".
It is borne out from the record that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court against an order dated 18.11.2016, where the similar claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Authority concerned.
Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed writ petition being, Writ-C No.-13736 of 2017 (Hemant Godha and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) which was disposed of on 6.3.2018 in the following terms;
"This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 18 November 2016, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Noida [hereinafter referred to as the ADM (LA)] by which the representation filed by the petitioners pursuant to the direction issued by the Court on 27 April 2016 in the earlier Writ-C No. 18760 of 2016 filed by the petitioners has been disposed of holding that the compensation cannot be paid to the petitioner as neither the possession of the land was taken nor the award under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made.
The dispute in the present petition is regarding land measuring 0.0840 hectares in Khasra No. 484 situated in revenue village- Khoda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (Now Gautam Budh Nagar). The petitioners had earlier filed Writ-C No. 18760 of 2016 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 27 April 2016 with the following observations:
"Dispute is in respect of plot no.484 measuring about 0-8-4-0 Pukhta (1000 Sq. Yards) situate in village Khora, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadari District Ghaziabad. The said plot was subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act'). Notification was issued on 11.7.1988. Admittedly, the land was acquired as long back as in July 1988 and the petitioner had purchased the said plot from the erstwhile owner vide sale deed dated 16.12.1989, i.e., after declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was made on 11.7.1988. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 2008 Law Suit (SC) 2247 has held that a subsequent purchaser has no right or title to the property and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation.
In such view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the relief claimed for return of the land is not liable to be granted and at best the petitioner can make an application for payment of compensation and in case the same has not already been paid to the erstwhile recorded tenure holder, the application may be considered by the Additional District Magistrate, NOIDA in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of making of the application.
Writ petition stands disposed of."
As noted above, the ADM (LA) has recorded a finding that though the land was included in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act but the possession was not transferred to the Noida, therefore, in such circumstances, neither the award was made nor the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
It is, therefore, clear from the stand of the State and the Authority that the possession of the land was not transferred to the Noida nor any award was made. The directions contained in the order dated 18 November 2016 of ADM (LA) that the petitioners are not entitled to the compensation also indicate that the State had not taken possession of the land.
In this view of the matter, it is for the petitioners to seek demarcation of their land. For this purpose, the petitioners may move an appropriate application before the Competent Authority and the Court has no reason to doubt that in case such an application is moved, an order shall be passed after hearing the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. "
That in furtherance to the order passed in the said writ petition, the competent Authority reconsidered the matter / claim of the petitioner and arrived at following conclusions;
";gkW ;g fo'ks"k :i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 06-3-2018 esa Hkh iz'uxr Hkwfe vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼Hkw0v0½ dk;kZy; ls /kkjk&4 ¼1½ o /kkjk&6 fd;s tkus dk mYys[k gS ijUrq ;g Hkh vafdr gS fd uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k dks dHkh dCtk ugha fn;k x;k] vr% fdlh izdkj ds vokMZ dh dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA bl rF; ls ;kph Hkh fHkK gSaA uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k }kjk Qknj ,Xuy Ldwy dks 22]584-87 oxZehVj ds nks IykV vkaofVr fd;s x;s gSa ,oa bUMloSyh Ldwy dks 16185-87 oxZehVj dk ,d IykV vkaofVr fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh Qknj ,Xuy Ldwy }kjk vius i{k esa tks vfHkys[k miyC/k djk;s gSa] muesa dCtk vkns'k dh izfr Hkh layXu gS] ftlesa lgk;d fof/k vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 11-1-1999 dks tkjh fd;s x;s dCtk izek.k i= esa of.kZr Hkwfe dh pkSgnnh mRrj esa xzhu csYV vkSj xkao] nf{k.k esa IykV ua0&1 iwjc esa 30 ehVj pkSM+h lM+d o if'pe esa xzke [kksM+k nf'kZr dh gSA blh izdkj bUMloSyh [email protected]{kh }kjk vius i{k esa tks vfHkys[k miyC/k djk;s gSa muesa miyC/k dCtk izek.k i= fnukad 31-10-2000 esa of.kZr Hkwfe dh pkSgnnh mRrj 02 lSDVj 62] nf{k.k ikuh dh Vadh] iwjc 30 ehVj pkSMh lM+d o if'pe xzke [kksM+k vafdr gSA nksuks dCtk izek.k i=ksa esa of.kZr Hkwfe dk [kljk uEcj dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gSA miyC/k vfHkys[kksa esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k [email protected] gseUr xks/kk o vU; cuke m0iz0 ljdkj o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-4-2016 dh izfr Hkh miyC/k ik;h x;h] ftldk mYys[k foi{kh }kjk viuh vkifRr esa Hkh fd;k gSa ftlesa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;kph dks vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼Hkw0v0½ xkSrecq)uxj ds dk;kZy; esa izfrdj ds Hkqxrku lEcU/kh izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus ds funsZ'k fn;s gSaA ek0 U;k;ky; }kjk vius mDr vkns'k esa izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh fnukad ls rhu ekg ds Hkhrj izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;s gSA ftl ij rRle; tuin xkSrecq)uxj ls gh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gSA [kljk la[;k 484 dqy 22 [kkrksa esa foHkDr gS] ftlesa m0iz0 tehnkjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&176 vFkok m0iz0 jktLo lafgrk 2006 dh /kkjk&76 ds vUrxZr dksbZ dk;Zokgh uk rks dh xbZ gS] ,oa u gh v/kksgLrk{kjh ds U;k;ky; esa fopkj/khu gSa VksVy losZ e'khu }kjk djkbZ xbZ iSekbZ'k eas [kljk la[;k 484 dk 0-1703 gS0 jdck [kksM+k dkyksuh dh vkcknh esa ik;k x;k] ,oa 0-5731 gS0 o 0-1228 gS0 jdck dze'k% uks,Mk fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk iwoZ esa bUMloSyh Ldwy ,oa Qknj ,Xuy Ldwy dks vkaofVr IykV dh pkjnhokjh ds Hkhrj ik;k x;k gS] ftlds lEcU/k esa iw.kZ fuLrkj.k uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k ls gh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA pwafd iwoZ esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k [email protected] gseUr xks/kk o vU; cuke m0iz0 ljdkj o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-4-2016 dk vuqikyu tuin xkSrecq)uxj ls fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa iz'uxr izdj.k ij Hkh dk;Zokgh tuin xkSrecq)uxj ls gh dh tkuh fof/klEer gSA vr% mijksDrkuqlkj leLr vfHkys[k ewy:i esa layXu dj vk[;k egksn;k dks bl vuqjks/k ds lkFk izsf"kr gS fd izdj.k ds vfUre :i ls fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus gsrq tuin xkSrecq)uxj lUnfHkZr djus dk d"V djsaA "
In view of the finding arrived at by the competent Authority, it is apparent that the land of the petitioner is not acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Sector 6, District Gautam Budh Nagar instead it is found being occupied by two respective schools, this fact is evident from the following findings;
**VksVy losZ e'khu }kjk djkbZ xbZ iSekbZ'k eas [kljk la[;k 484 dk 0-1703 gS0 jdck [kksM+k dkyksuh dh vkcknh esa ik;k x;k] ,oa 0-5731 gS0 o 0-1228 gS0 jdck dze'k% uks,Mk fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk iwoZ esa bUMloSyh Ldwy ,oa Qknj ,Xuy Ldwy dks vkaofVr IykV dh pkjnhokjh ds Hkhrj ik;k x;k gS] ftlds lEcU/k esa iw.kZ fuLrkj.k uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k ls gh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA "
In view whereof since, the New Okhla Industrial Development has not acquired the petitioner's property, the relief as sought for cannot be granted to the petitioner.
Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Needless to say the petitioner is always at liberty to seek his remedy against respective schools who are prima facie in occupation of the land of the petitioner before the Civil Court.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Neeraj (Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J).