Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35979 of 2018 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar And 19 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Dubey,Ram Sajiwan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh on behalf of the respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 3, 4 and 5.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned orders dated 07.03.2018, 13.07.2018 and 18.07.2018 passed by the respondents no.4 and 5 respectively. By the impugned order the compensation was directed to be paid to the respondents no. 6 to 9.
It reflects from the record that the land acquisition officer awarded compensation in respect of the land in dispute but since there was a dispute among the petitioner and the respondents no.6 to 9, the compensation was directed not to be disbursed to anybody. Subsequently, the respondent no.6- Jaiveer Singh and others filed a suit for declaration under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1951 with regard to the land in dispute. The said suit was subsequently decreed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 10.01.2018. The order passed by the SDM, Gautam Budh Nagar was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut which is pending and no interim order was passed in the said appeal. The Additional District Magistrate, Greater Noida vide interim order has directed that the compensation be paid to the respondents no. 6 to 9 subject to the condition that they will give a bond to the effect that in case the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed, they will return the compensation to the concerned authority. The title with regard to the land has been decided in favour of the respondents no. 6 to 9. The decree passed by the revenue court is under challenge and has not finally been set aside even though there is no interim order pending in the appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to cost.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of the concerned division is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Kirti