Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28482 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kiran Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava,Smt. Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is claiming compensation of the land Araji No. 148 situate in Nava Nagar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Ballia which was acquired by the State of U.P. for the benefit of respondent No.2 way back in the year 1991.
It appears that the husband of the petitioner was the owner of the said land and he had filed a Writ Petition (A) No. 35706 of 2004 (Avadh Bihari Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and others) claiming apportionment in the department as well as payment of compensation.
The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 16.04.2011 upholding refusal to appointment to the husband of the petitioner but with a direction to pay compensation along with interest at the rate of 5% from the date the compensation became due till its payment.
In pursuance to the above, the compensation amount at circle rate of Rs. 75 per square meter for the acquired land was sent to the petitioner by registered post at the postal address given by her husband, but the same was returned by the Postal Department with the endorsement that the petitioner is not residing at the said address and that her other address is not known.
The information dated 26.09.2017 given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act which has been filed as annexure-1 to the petition further reveals that the petitioner has been asked to collect the compensation from the competent authority and if she is not satisfied with the amount, she may approach the competent authority by means of a representation for its enhancement.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the land acquired is in the name of the husband of the petitioner and that her husband had previously filed a writ petition which has already been decided, we are of the view that this petition by the petitioner is neither maintainable and is rather an abuse of the process of the Court as it is the second writ petition for the same cause of action. Moreover, the petitioner is free to collect the compensation. Since the payment of compenstion is not denied, she is not the person aggrieved to maintain this petition.
In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Nirmal Sinha