Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3512 (ALL)

Krishna Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-10-20

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh appears for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioners are before this Court for following reliefs: - "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding to the respondent Ghaziabad Development Authorities to restore back the building and possession to the petitioners over 4 bighas 12 biswa land portion of revenue plot no.360, Mauja Hasanpur Bhovapur, Pargana and Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad within reasonable time granted by this Hon'ble Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.15 lacs each to the petitioners for illegal demolition of her building, in the interest of justice. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ad-interim mandamus commanding to the respondent authorities/ Collector, Ghaziabad to ensure availability of temporary residential accommodation on spot or at any place on the cost of Ghaziabad Development Authority in favour of petitioners to live with her family in winter season till final decision of the writ petition, in the interest of justice." 3. The entire claim has been set up on the ground that revenue plot no.360 area 4 bigha 12 biswa Mauja Hasanpur Bhovapur, Pargana and Tehsil Loni, Distt. Ghaziabad vested in Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of UPZA & LR Act. The petitioners as well as other landless labourers were selected in an open meeting of Village Panchayat dated 4.12.1976 for allotment of 150 sq. yard land to each one for abadi site. Consequently, lease was also executed separately in favour of the petitioners on 3.1.1976. It is claimed that after execution/ approval of lease deed the petitioners had raised certain constructions and were residing there. 4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without any due notice or opportunity, the GDA had proceeded to demolish the property in question on 19.1.2016. On account of demolition of the property in question the petitioners have suffered loss of more than Rs.15 lacs each and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 5. On account of demolition of the property in question the petitioners have suffered loss of more than Rs.15 lacs each and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition on the ground that at no point of time the petitioners have filed any relevant document to indicate that the land in question /abadi had ever been allotted to the petitioners in consonance with the UPZA & LR Act. It is sought to be contended that at no point of time any patta was executed in their favour and no revenue record has been produced and as such they did not have any valid right or claim over the property in question and as such no interference is required in the matter. 6. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, who appears on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that in the present matter similarly situated persons have already filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.5513 of 2005 (Fagna & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors.) and vide order dated 1.12.2009 the writ petition was disposed of asking the Vice Chairman, GDA to decide their claim. Consequently, the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad vide order dated 5.3.2010 (annexed at page 21 to 23 of the writ petition) decided their respective claims. While deciding the claim the Vice Chairman has clearly proceeded to observe that in the present matter the land in question has already been utilised for establishing the "Kaushambi Residential Scheme" and after the entire developmental activities the property in question has already been allotted to the allottees and as such without any legal valid claim the petitioner is raising highly disputed facts, which cannot be decided under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and we find that entire claim has been set up on the ground that certain patta was executed in favour of the petitioners way back in the year 1976 but nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the said proceeding has taken place strictly as per the provisions contained under the UPZA & LR Act. Even no revenue record has been appended along with the writ petition to ascertain that after the allotment in question the name of respective allottees were ever mutated in revenue record. We also find from the record in question that similar controversy has already been resolved by the Vice Chairman way back in the year 2010 itself and from bare perusal of the said order passed by the Vice Chairman this much is reflected that on spot there is residential scheme known as "Kaushambi Residential Scheme", wherein after completion of the scheme the property in question has already been allotted to the allottees. The Vice Chairman had further observed that the alleged patta holders have not filed any relevant record to indicate that their names have ever been entered in the revenue record. 8. Once such is the factual situation and at present the complaint is being made that their constructions have been removed, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have got remedial forums under Section 26-B of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which talks about claim for compensation for removal under Section 26-A or they may file suit for damages in this regard. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petitioners would have liberty to avail other alternative remedies in this regard but in any case, we cannot come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioners. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.