Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 61015 of 2017 Petitioner :- Subasini Giri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3-authority.
Learned counsel for respondents-authority, at the outset, invites our attention to the order dated 20.2.2018 passed in Writ-C No.6822 of 2018 and submits that the petitioners therein and the petitioner in the present writ petition are similarly placed and even the prayers made in both the writ petitions are similar. In view thereof, he submits that this petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.2.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submissions made on behalf of respondents-authority.
The relevant portion of the order dated 20.2.2018 passed in Writ-C No. 6822 of 2018 reads thus:
“The only prayer made in the writ petition, reads thus:
"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding to Respondent no.2 for allotment of 40 sq. meter plot each of the petitioner in lieu of the petitioners' land in Khasra N.13M, 14M and 15 of village Garhi Chaukhandi, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar which was utilized by respondent no.2 for construction of Faridabad- Noida-Ghaziabad Road (FNG Road)."
It is not in dispute that the petitioners are subsequent purchasers. Counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners purchased 50-60 sq. yards' residential plots in Khasra Nos.13M, 14M and 15 in Village Garhi Chaukhandi, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar after those khasra numbers were acquired for public purpose. It appears from the letter dated 4.4.2014 (Annexure-3) that after the acquisition of the aforesaid khasra numbers, the possession was also taken by the acquiring authority. Thereafter, the petitioners entered into the registered sale-deeds with the original land owners and, on the basis thereof, they claim benefit of the decision of the Board in its meeting No.181 dated 12.2.2014. Even from a perusal of the decision of the Board, it is clear that the benefit is not extended to the subsequent purchasers. We are informed that either the compensation was paid to the original land owners or the same was deposited with the concerned Land Acquisition Officer.
In the circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve any relief of whatsoever nature in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Dismissal of this petition, shall not preclude the petitioners from proceeding against the original land owners from whom they purchased the land, if they so desire and are advised. While making this observation, it is made clear that we have not examined rights of the parties.”
In view thereof, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.2.2018.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 RK (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)