Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42076 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahipal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Sharma,Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court, to challenge the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) dated 06.12.2019, by which the application of the petitioner to withhold the payment of compensation in favour of respondent no. 5 has been rejected. The petitioner made an application that the land in question namely Gata No. 395 and Gata No. 403 were bequeathed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner in his favour through a registered will deed executed on 27.11.1991 and the respondent no. 5 on the basis of forged document claiming it to be a will deed in her favour executed in the year 1993 got her name mutated in the revenue record in 2000. The petitioner came to know of this fact in 2019, he moved an application before Tehsildar for expunging the name of the respondent no. 5 from the revenue record and entering his name. The Tehsildar on the other hand proceeded to pass order in favour of the petitioner directing the Land Acquisition Authority not to pay compensation to respondent no. 5.
It is submitted that this fact when brought to the knowledge of Land Acquisition Authorities they refused to accept the contention of the petitioner and has held that Tehsildar has no power under the Act to grant such stay with regard to payment of compensation and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
It is not disputed that the land in question has been acquired and the compensation awarded has been determined. So far the payment of compensation in favour of the petitioner is concerned, which he claims right and title over the property, on the basis of registered will deed executed in the year 1991. Whereas, the name of respondent no. 5 is continuing in the revenue records since, 2000.
From the averments made in the writ petition as well as the document filed therein, it does not appear that the petitioner has ever challenged the will executed in favour of respondent no. 5 before any court of competent jurisdiction.
However, for declaration that such a will is null and void and for cancellation of that will deed, the Tehsildar on the other hand has no power to issue any direction to the Land Acquisition Authorities to withhold payment of compensation in favour of respondent no. 5 which from the revenue records appears to be the owner of the plot in question.
As such, we decline to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.12.2019 filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
It is provided that the petitioner can get his right settled before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 sweta (Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)