Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 257 (ALL)

Raees v. Union of India

2020-01-22

B.K.NARAYANA, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 1, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Sri Pawan Kumar Misra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Hari Om Tiwari for respondent No. 6. 3. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following prayer: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to refer the dispute as to the ownership as well as apportionment of the Plot No. 248 area 62 square meters situate at Mohalla Indra Nagar (Junedpura), Pargana Kalpi, District Jalaun, at Orai which was acquired vide notification 15.1.2018 issued under Section 3-A(1) as well as notification of declaration dated 6.1.2018 issued under Section 3-D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. (i)(a) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.4.2018 passed by the Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jalaun at Orai (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to release compensation in respect of Plot No. 248 area 62 square meters situate at Mohalla Indra Nagar (Junedpura), Pargana Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai in favour of the petitioner with interest at market rate within a period of time specified by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to release compensation in respect of the Plot No. 248 area 62 square meters situate at Mohalla Indra Nagar (Junedpura), Pargana Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai to the respondent No. 6 unless the dispute of its ownership and apportionment of compensation is adjudicated upon by the competent Civil Court. (iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. Pleadings between the parties have been; exchanged. 5. (iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. Pleadings between the parties have been; exchanged. 5. The facts of the case as emerging from the perusal of the pleadings of the parties are that there is a plot namely Plot No. 248 area 62 square meters situate at Mohalla Indra Nagar (Junedpura), Pargana Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed plot"). Nuruddin son of Quifayat Ullah @ Babu was the original owner of an area of 75 square meters of the disputed plot which he had subsequently transferred to the respondent No. 6, Bashir Rain by a registered sale-deed dated 12.5.1994 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/-, true copy of the sale-deed dated 12.5.1994 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 6 subsequently transferred an area of 62 square meters of the disputed plot from the total area of 75 square meters which he had purchased from its erstwhile owner by registered sale-deed dated 8.5.2017 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. True copy of the sale-deed dated 8.5.2017 has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Although the name of the respondent No. 6 was recorded in the municipal record on the basis of the sale-deed dated 12.5.1994 but the name of the petitioner could not be mutated as the owner of an area of 62 square meters of the disputed plot on the strength of the sale-deed dated 8.5.2017. It appears that Central Government issued a notification on 15.1.2018 under Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") declaring its intention to acquire land situate in several villages including village Kalpi for the purpose of road widening, maintenance, management and operation of NH-25 which was followed by acquisition of the land detailed in the scheduled appended thereto by issuing notification dated 6.7.2018 under Section 3D(1) of the Act which was published in the Gazette of India on 10.7.2018 for the purpose of widening of NH-25. The respondent No. 6 filed an objection purporting to be under Section 3C(1) of the Act with the prayer for being awarded compensation on the strength of the sale-deed dated 12.5.1994 in respect of the entire area of 75 square meters of the disputed plot which was purchased by him from its erstwhile owner by the aforesaid sale-deed concealing the fact that but of total area of 75 square meters, he had transferred 62 square meters of the disputed plot to the petitioner. The petitioner also filed his objection under Section 3C(1) of the Act on 5.2.2018, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. By the impugned order, the respondent No. 5 allowed the objection filed by the respondent No. 6. 6. Hence this petition. 7. Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the only objection which can be entertained by the competent authority under Section 3C(1) of the Act is with regard to the user of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in the notification issued under Sub-Section 1 of Section 3A of the Act and while deciding the objection under Section 3C(1) of the Act, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any claim of compensation or apportionment thereof. 8. He also submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 5 without affording any opportunity of hearing and without deciding his objection in gross violation of principles of natural justice, although the same carry civil consequences in view of the fact that by the impugned order, the respondent No. 6 who has owner of an area of 13 square meters of the disputed plot only, has been held entitled to receive compensation for the total area of 75 square meters of the disputed plot purchased by him from its erstwhile owner and deprives the petitioner of his right of receiving compensation. He lastly submitted that the impugned order which is wholly without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra Sri Hari Om Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and Sri Pawan Kumar Misra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have made their submissions in support of the impugned order. 10. 9. Per contra Sri Hari Om Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and Sri Pawan Kumar Misra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have made their submissions in support of the impugned order. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 11. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to extract Section 3A(1), 3C(1) and 3D(1) of the Act, herein below: "3A. Power to acquire land, etc.-(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. 3C. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. 3D. Declaration of acquisition.-(1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of Section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 3A." 12. Thus, even the most superficial reading of Section 3C(1) of the Act indicates that the objection under Section 3C(1) shall be confined to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Sub-Section 1 of Section 3A of the Act alone. There is nothing in Section 3C(1) showing that any dispute regarding payment of compensation or apportionment of compensation can be decided by the competent authority while adjudicating upon an objection under Section 3C(1) of the Act. 13. Thus, in view of the above, the impugned order which is wholly without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. 13. Thus, in view of the above, the impugned order which is wholly without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 6.4.2018 passed by the respondent No. 5 is hereby quashed. There shall be however no order as to costs.