Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Mr. Varun Pandey, Advocate has accepted notice for opposite party no. 4.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State and Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4.
The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to opposite parties to make payment of remaining compensation amount of Rs. 36,19,600/- of the land situated at Gata No. 47 village Daudpur, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki along with other co-sharers with 12% interest.
As per the own case of the petitioner, petitioner had executed a sale-deed dated 4.8.2016 regarding the land in question in favour of opposite party no. 4 for the purpose of construction of Purvanchal Expressway at the rate of Rs. 84,00,000/- per hectare with consideration amount of Rs. 1,03,74,000/-.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the adjacent lands of some other farmers have been taken at much higher rate and, as such, the opposite parties have discriminated petitioner. The petitioner being an illiterate person was not aware about the higher rate at which other lands were taken by the opposite party no. 4, as such, he is entitle to get difference of the amount on the basis of the rate at which other lands were taken by the opposite party no. 4.
Learned standing counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 as well as Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner has been paid the compensation four times the circle rate and he had executed the sale-deed in favour of opposite party no. 4 on his own freewill without there being any pressure or coercion and, as such, he has no right to claim any amount more than the amount which has been paid to him.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the record.
It is the admitted case of the parties that the consideration amount as determined in the sale-deed of the land in question has been paid to the petitioner. The sale-deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of opposite party no. 4 out of his own freewill and, as such, the petitioner has no right to claim any amount more than what was the consideration amount in the sale-deed.
The writ petition being misconceived is dismissed.
[Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Santosh/-