Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15099 of 2021 Petitioner :- Murti Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretory Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh learned Advocate has received notice on behalf of respondent no. 6 and Sri A.B. Singhal learned Advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 7.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order dated 29.1.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 namely the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation on the premise that the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, for whose benefit the land in question has been acquired, had not been impleaded in the proceeding for cancellation of the allotment under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
The record indicates that the land in question had been allotted in favour of the petitioner vide resolution dated 4.12.1990 of the Gram Sabha, i.e. the land management committee concerned and the proposal was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.8.1991. The proceeding for cancellation of the allotment were initiated on some complaint filed by the private persons which had been culminated with the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner of the division concerned.
In the meantime, the land in question had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act vide notification dated 4.4.2009.
Having won in the proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, the petitioner had approached the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar for payment of compensation. When no action was taken, he filed the Writ Petition No. 21642 of 2019 (Murti Devi and another vs. State of U.P. and 6 others), wherein a direction was given by the judgment and order dated 22.8.2019 to consider the claim of the petitioner.
By means of the order impugned, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the order passed by the Commissioner of the division concerned is an ex-parte order, inasmuch as, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority had not been impleaded therein. It was also noted therein that Gram Sabha concerned was required to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner by initiating appropriate proceeding.
Having noted the reasoning given in the order impugned, we do not find any justification to sustain the same, inasmuch as, the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority is only the beneficiary for whose benefit the land in question had been acquired.
In the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, only the Gram Sabha is the necessary party as the dispute was with regard to the allotment of Gram Sabha land. The order impugned does not indicate that the Gram Sabha is not impleaded therein.
A perusal of the order impugned further indicates that the Commissioner of the Division concerned had examined all points of the complaint made by the private parties. It has taken note that the proposal for allotment of the agricultural land in favour of 63 persons had been passed on 4.12.1990 by the Land Management Committee/Gram Sabha. It was duly approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 31.8.1991. The allegation in the complaint that the allottees were ineligible had been duly considered and it was opined that the allottees were landless labourers and were eligible for allotment. Further that the land in question was not a public utility land rather it was the land in the management of the Gram Sabha under Section 195 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
Having perused the order passed by the Commissioner concerned and noticing the fact that the proceedings for cancellation of the lease under Section 198(4) of the Act initiated against the petitioner had been brought to its logical end with the order dated 16.11.2015, it was not open for the District Magistrate to reject the claim of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned in the order impugned.
At no stage of the proceeding for cancellation of the allotment, the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, a beneficiary of the acquisition notification issued in the year 2009 was necessary party, inasmuch as, the right of the tenure holder on the date of the acquisition with the decision of the Commissioner has to be seen for grant of compensation. The dispute whether the land in question had been legally allotted in the name of the petitioner had been concluded.
For the aforesaid, the reasoning given in the order impugned cannot be sustained. The same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back for fresh decision by the District Magistrate for disbursement of compensation to the petitioner herein.
It goes without saying that the entitlement of the petitioner for disbursement of compensation has to be examined after ascertaining the right of the petitioner allottee on the date of acquisition notification strictly in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.
An expeditious decision, in accordance with law, shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of the same under due intimation to the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Brijesh Digitally signed by Justice Sunita Agarwal Date: 2021.08.05 13:04:44 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani Thakur Date: 2021.08.05 13:30:56 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad