Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1632 (ALL)

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURI v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-05-20

NAHEED ARA MOONIS, VINEET SARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The admitted case of the petitioner is that his father Ram Lal was granted a lease of certain agricultural land on 1.7.1950 for a period of thirty years. During the period of the lease, in the year 1964 a small portion of the land leased to the father of the petitioner (comprising an area of 0.45 acre) was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1984 for which due compensation was paid to the father of the petitioner who was the lease holder at the time of acquisition of the land. The remaining 10.88 acres of land continued in the possession of the father of the petitioner. In the meantime the father of the petitioner expired and the lease which was granted in favour of Ram Lal, was transferred in favour of the petitioner and his brother Rajendra Kumar and the names of the petitioner as well as Rajendra Kumar Suri were entered in the revenue records. The petitioner’s claim is that under the provisions of U.P. Government Estate Thekedari Abolition Act 1958 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959), the petitioner has acquired right of heritable tenant, as such even on the expiry of the lease on 30th June 1980,the right of the petitioner had continued. 2. After the expiry of the lease granted in favour of the father of the petitioner, the respondent authorities proceeded to evict the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner filed a civil suit in which temporary injunction was rejected. The petitioner as well as his brother filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed. The petitioner as well as his brother filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2832 of 1984 (Rajendra Kumar Suri and another v. State of U.P.and others) in which this Court, after considering the totality of the circumstances, held that the claim of the petitioners was upto 31st June 1982 but since the land revenue had been deposited by the petitioner and his brother upto 31.3.1983, thus, while dismissing the writ petition, allowed the petitioner to continue in possession till 31st March 1983. The petitioner as well as his brother also gave an undertaking that they shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the land in question to the respondents on or before 31st March 1983. The petitioner as well as his brother also gave an undertaking that they shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the land in question to the respondents on or before 31st March 1983. While dismissing the writ petition on the basis of the said undertaking, the petitioner continued to be in possession till March 1983. It is not disputed that the petitioner has handed over the possession in terms of the said undertaking. 3. The grievance of the petitioner did not end here. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the State Government claiming compensation for his eviction from the land in dispute which was denied to him by the State Government vide order dated 14.1.1986. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue directions to the respondents to immediately start proceedings for grant of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. We have heard Sri K.R.Sirohi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and perused the record. 5. The claim of the petitioner rests on the basis of handing over the possession of the land in question in terms of the High Court’s order dated 26.11.1982 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2832 of 1982 wherein according to the petitioner, he had made an endorsement that the handing over of the possession is subject to the such rights as may be available to him for receiving compensation. It has been contended that the father of the petitioner had acquired heritable right in terms of the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1959 and as such the petitioner was legally entitled to continue in possession and since they were required to hand over possession which was not in accordance with law, thus, they would be entitled to payment of compensation. 6. In our view, such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Once the possession of the land in question had been directed to be handed over by the order of this Court dated 26.11.1982 passed in Civil Misc. 6. In our view, such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Once the possession of the land in question had been directed to be handed over by the order of this Court dated 26.11.1982 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2832 of 1982 (Rajendra Kumar Suri and another v. State of U.P.and others) in which the petitioner had not claimed any such heritable right in terms of the provisions of the Act No. 1 of 1959, the petitioner cannot thereafter be permitted to raise any further objection with regard to such claim over the land in question except in case where the lease had been renewed in favour of the petitioners as has been observed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.1982. It is not the case of the petitioner that the lease was ever renewed in his favour. Merely by making an endorsement that the possession of the land was being handed over with the objection that the petitioner reserves his right to claim compensation, the petitioner would not get any such right also because no such liberty had been given to the petitioner by the High Court vide order dated 26.11.1982. The earlier writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed but considering that the petitioner continued in possession over the land in question after 30.6.1982 (without there being any authority of law) and that the petitioner had sown potato crops on the land in question, the prayer to allow him to continue in possession till 31st March 1983 was granted on the specific undertaking given by the petitioner, that by such date he would hand over the vacant possession to the respondents. 7. Compensation can be claimed only when a party has right, title and interest over the property in question from which he is being deprived of. In the present case, we do not find that the petitioner had any right, title or interest to continue in possession over the property in question after 31st March 1983, specially in view of the undertaking given by him that he would hand over peaceful vacant possession to the respondents on or before 31st March 1983. It is not the case of the petitioners that the lease was renewed in their favour after the said date. 8. It is not the case of the petitioners that the lease was renewed in their favour after the said date. 8. As such, we are of the firm opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to payment of any compensation merely on the basis that he had filed an objection while handing over possession of the land in question. 9. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the order dated 14th January 1986 passed by the respondent No. 1 which is impugned in the present writ petition nor the petitioner is entitled to writ of mandamus for payment of compensation as has been prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.