Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27570 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra And Another Respondent :- National Highway Authority Of India Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Byas Mishra,Rajiv Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
The land of Gata No.168 area 0.007 and Gata No.169 area 581 situate in Village Muzaffarpur, Tehsil Mehnagar, District Azamgarh was acquired for the benefit of the National Highway Authority of India Ltd. under the National Highways Act, 1956. The compensation in respect of the said land has been paid to the petitioners and their brother respondent No.3. Now, the dispute is with regard to the payment of compensation of the structure of the house existing on the said land.
The petitioners claim that they are entitle to 2/3rd share in the same and that respondent No.3 has only 1/3rd share.
The Competent Authority by the impugned order dated 02.08.2018 on the basis of the evidence produced before him namely that of the entries which disclose respondent No.3 to be the exclusive owner and the electricity bill in his name has directed for the payment of the entire compensation to the respondent No.3.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that he is not the exclusive or sole owner of the entire house and that all the brothers have equal share in it.
The petitioners have already filed a suit for partition of the said house i.e. original suit No.1223 of 2017 which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Azamgarh.
In view of the pendency of the above suit, the share of the petitioners in the house in dispute would be determined in the said suit, therefore, any payment of compensation under the orders of the competent court would be subject to the decision of the said civil suit.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not deem necessary to interfere in the matter and dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the Competent Authority to make the payment of the compensation to the respondent No.3 only after he furnishes an indemnity bond that in case he loses in the said suit or that the petitioners are held entitle to share in the aforesaid house in the said suit, he would refund the compensation paid to him along with the interest.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 piyush