Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57395 of 2014 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal,Aalok Kumar Srivastava,Avanish Pratap Singh,Siddharth Singhal,Udai Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.N.Maurya,M.C. Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Shri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the similar controversy has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 13.3.2019 passed in Writ-C No.31033 of 2011 (Badan Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and present petition may also be decided in similar terms. For ready reference, the order dated 13.3.2019 is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Agra Development Authority, Agra and Sri Gyanendra Srivastava learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is under challenge before this Court, which has been considered by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ravindra Wadhwa and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2017 (2) ADJ 1. Paragraph nos. 23, 24, 25 of the aforesaid Judgement reads as under:-
"23. In view of what has been discussed above and also in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. And others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB), this Court finds no reasons to interfere or to grant any indulgence in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
24. Thus, in the result, all the writ petition are dismissed.
25. However, even though the petitions are dismissed but liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the respondents with regard to their claim for adequate compensation."
Sri Rakesh Pandey, one of the counsel for the petitioners in connected writ petition no. 49418 of 2011 with the instant petition, has submitted that after dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, in the matter of Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd., award dated 24.05.2017 has been passed under the provisions of 24 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
As per para 25 of the aforesaid Judgement rendered in the matter of Ravindra Wadhwa and others (supra), this Court has already observed that adequate compensation will be paid to the tenure holder. Therefore, we expect that the respondents may grant adequate compensation to the petitioners/tenure holders, in accordance with law.
The order passed in the case of Ravindra Wadhwa and others (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case also. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
In view of above, present writ petition is also decided in terms of order in Badan Singh (Supra).
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 SP/