Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 478 (ALL)

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-09

A.P.SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Shri Mehrotra, learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority. 2. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State as well as by the Lucknow Development Authority. 3. The petitioner had purchased the land which has been acquired through a registered sale-deed from an erstwhile owner on 24.9.1981. Immediately thereafter, the land became subject-matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and a notification was issued under Section 4 on 12.11.1981 followed by notification under Section 6 on 3.12.1981. The award was made on 15.1.1986 and the possession is also stated to have been taken. The land was thereafter allegedly handed over to the Lucknow Development Authority. 4. This writ petition has been filed contending that since no compensation has been paid, therefore, the proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. The petitioner had filed W.P. No. 8695 (M/B) of 2012 when the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed from the land and demolition was to be carried out which petition was disposed of on 15th October, 2012 with a direction that the authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month thereafter. 6. The order was passed on 17.12.2012 stating therein that since the award has already been announced on 15th February, 2016 and that the possession has been taken way back in 1983, the representation deserves to be rejected. 7. The petitioner raising this plea had also filed Writ Petition No. 96 (L/A) of 2014 - Rakesh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. - that was disposed of on 22.2.2016 directing the State Government to take a decision on the grievance raised by the petitioner particularly with regard to the applicability of the 2013 Act. 8. The State Government by the impugned order dated 26th July, 2016 has rejected the representation stating therein that since possession had been taken over and the acquisition proceedings had been completed, no case was made out for accepting the stand taken by the petitioner. 9. 8. The State Government by the impugned order dated 26th July, 2016 has rejected the representation stating therein that since possession had been taken over and the acquisition proceedings had been completed, no case was made out for accepting the stand taken by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court to contend that the aforesaid reasoning given in the impugned order is erroneous and even otherwise in view of the settled law as existing today, the proceedings should be treated to have lapsed. 10. The judgment that has been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Bhusai v. State of U.P. and others, decided in Land Acquisition No. 42 of 2014 on 26.9.2016 which is a division bench judgment of this Court and the rejection of the review application in the same case. 11. The aforesaid stand is also supported by the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh and others, AIR 2016 (8) SC 4275 and the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 . 12. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State nowhere indicates either the tendering of payment or the compensation being handed over to the petitioner. To the contrary the averment contained in the counter-affidavit is that the amount of compensation had been deposited in the treasury as the petitioner had not turned up to receive the said compensation. 13. The aforesaid stand of the State Government in view of the law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner now cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the State admits that the amount of compensation was not deposited according to the procedure prescribed before the competent Court. 14. Consequently, the ratio of the decisions aforesaid is clearly attracted in the present case. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 26th July, 2016, 17th December, 2012, 19th February, 2013 and 17th June, 2013 are quashed and it is held that the proceedings of acquisition for the land in question will be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. 15. The writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow.