Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3081 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Dubey (Dwivedi) And Another Respondent :- National Highway Authority Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manu Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The petitioners' case is that they are partners of a partnership firm, namely, M/s Kumar Cold Storage which is situated over Arazi Nos. 515, 517, 518, 520 and 521. The said land along with common land owned by family of the petitioners was acquired under the provisions of Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act, 1956").
It is stated that respondent nos. 3 and 4 retired from the firm and a retirement deed was executed between the parties which has been signed by all partners. A xerox copy of the retirement deed is on the record. After the execution of the said deed the petitioners moved an application before the Tehsildar for mutation of their names on the basis of retirement deed and their names were mutated vide order dated 16.5.2017. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tehsildar, the respondent no.
4 preferred an appeal under Section 35(1)(c) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed the said appeal on 20.11.2018 setting aside the order of Tehsildar on the ground that after coming into force of the new Act i.e. the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the order ought to have been passed under the provisions of the new Act.
It is stated that the matter is still pending before the Tehsildar. In the meantime the said land has been acquired under the Act, 1956. The grievance of the petitioners is that in terms of the retirement deed only the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Act, 1956 as the respondent nos. 3 and 4 stood retired from the firm to the extent of their share 0.2192 hectares.
We have heard Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners' objections pending before the respondent no. 2 may be directed to be considered.
We are not issuing any notice to respondent nos. 3 & 4 as this order protects their interest. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties the writ petition is taken on board and is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material on record, we find that the ends of justice would be met by issuing a direction upon respondent no. 2 to consider the cause of the petitioners after furnishing opportunity to respondent nos. 3 & 4 expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case, the authority concerned shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Digamber