Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1274 (ALL)

Ajay Kumar v. Union of India

2022-08-11

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioners who claim to have right, title and interest in Arazi/Plot No. 139M having area 0.0140 hectare, situate in Village Pirallipur, Pargana Haveli, Post Chunar, District Mirzapur, have approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to create any interference in their peaceful possession over the said arazi/plot on the ground that the entire proceedings of the acquisition of the plot for special railway project stands lapsed under Section 20-F (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The petitioners have further prayed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. The facts giving rise to the controversy involved in the writ petition, briefly stated, as borne out from the record, are that one Chhavinath, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2, was residing in a double storied house constructed over arazi/plot No. 139 and 140 since the time of his ancestors. The Plot No. 139 and 140 were recorded as “Banjar” under category 5-3 ¼³½ in the revenue records with area 0.1390 hectares and 0.3790 hectares, respectively. It may be stated here that an area of 0.0560 hectares of plot No. 140 was settled in favour of residents of village under Section 123 (1) UPZA&LR Act vide order dated 6.10.1993. Proceedings under Section 122-B of the UPZA&LR Act for eviction of Chhavinath were drawn by the Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha of the village concerned which resulted in an ex-parte order dated 22.5.2008, being passed against Chhavinath. A restoration application was filed by Chhavinath stating his inability to appear in the proceedings whereafter the proceedings were restored after recalling the order dated 22.5.2008. On the restoration of the proceedings and after hearing Chhavinath, the report under Section 122-B UPZA&LR Act was rejected and the Notice 49-A was withdrawn by order dated 6.10.2008 passed by the Tehsildar, Chunar with further direction requiring the Revenue Inspector to proceed under Section 123 (1) of UPZA&LR Act. It appears that necessary order under Section 123 (1) of UPZA&LR Act were not passed and meanwhile, the said Chhavinath expired. An area of 0.1250 hectares of plot No. 139 was resumed by Commissioner, Vidhyachal Division, Mirzapur for the Dedicated Freight Corridor vide order dated 20.5.2012. After resumption of an area of 0.1250 hectares an area of 0.0140 hectares remained. It appears that necessary order under Section 123 (1) of UPZA&LR Act were not passed and meanwhile, the said Chhavinath expired. An area of 0.1250 hectares of plot No. 139 was resumed by Commissioner, Vidhyachal Division, Mirzapur for the Dedicated Freight Corridor vide order dated 20.5.2012. After resumption of an area of 0.1250 hectares an area of 0.0140 hectares remained. Thereafter, the petitioners who are the heirs of the deceased Chhavinath moved the Assistant Collector under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 praying that the house site be settled in their favour. The Assistant Collector vide order dated 16.6.2016 required the Tehsildar, Chunar to do the needful in accordance with law and submit report. Thereafter the abadi site in respect of arazi/Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare and arazi/plot No. 140 M, area 0.125 hectare were settled in favour of the petitioners under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006 vide order dated 30.8.2016. The names of the petitioners stand recorded over the Plot No. 139 M area 0.0140 hectares in the relevant revenue records. It is relevant to mention here that Chhavinath was survived by his wife Kamla Devi (petitioner No. 2) and sons Ajay Kumar (petitioner No. 1) Vijay Shanker, Subhash Chandra, Sanjay Kumar, Ishwar Chand. 3. On 24.6.2016, a Notification under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was issued by the Central Government wherein it was provided that certain lands in the district Mirzapur of the State of U.P. are required for the purpose of Special Railway Project i.e. Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor and declared intention to acquire the plots including the Plot No. 139-M area 0.0140 hectare settled in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter a declaration under Section 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989 was published on 12.1.2017. The plot No. 139M area 0.0140, however, did not find place in the declaration of acquisition under Section 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989. An award in respect of the acquisition was also made on 18.4.2017 and the Plot No. 139 M area 0.0140 did not find mention in the award. 4. The plot No. 139M area 0.0140, however, did not find place in the declaration of acquisition under Section 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989. An award in respect of the acquisition was also made on 18.4.2017 and the Plot No. 139 M area 0.0140 did not find mention in the award. 4. It is also relevant to record here that three members of the family of Chhavinath i.e. the petitioners herein and one Ishwar Chand have been granted benefit of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and a total area of 0.0580 hectares comprised in plot No. 139-M to the extent of 0.0140 hectares and plot No. 140M to the extent of 0.0440 hectares have been settled in their favour under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006. 5. On the basis of the above admitted facts, the petitioners submit that although initially vide Notification dated 24.6.2016 under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 the Central Government had declared its intention to acquire the arazi/plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare, but subsequently vide Notification dated 12.1.2017, under Section 20-E, the Central Government declared that the land excluding Arazi/Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare be acquired. Further, since no award has been made in respect of the Arazi/Plot No. 139M, area, 0.0140 hectare within one year from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 20-E, the entire proceedings for the acquisition in respect of the Arazi/Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare shall be deemed to have lapsed and the respondent authorities have no authority to interfere in the peaceful possession and beneficial enjoyment of the petitioners over their house constructed over Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectares. 6. The petitioners by way of a supplementary affidavit have brought on record the fact that by order dated 23.2.2021, the Assistant Collector had expunged the name of the petitioners from the revenue records and restored that of the Gaon Sabha, however, the petitioners assailed the order dated 23.2.2021 before this Court in Writ-C No. 17755 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) and Writ-C No. 10279 of 2021 (Kamla Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others) and this Court by orders dated 4.8.2021 and 16.8.2021, respectively, have allowed the writ petitions. 7. 7. This Court vide order dated 3.1.2019 while entertaining the writ petition invited counter affidavit from the respondents and at the same time directed parties to maintain status quo as on that day in respect of possession over the disputed land until further orders. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 7 wherein it has been stated that plot No. 139 area 0.1390 hectares has been recorded as Banzar and notified under category 5-3 ¼³½ and as such, vested in the gram sabha/state. In such view of the matter, no proceedings for its acquisition were required to be initiated and the plot was resumed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur vide order dated 26.4.2017 to the extent of an area of 0.0140 hectares out of an area of 0.1390 hectares and to the extent of an area of 0.3230 of plot No. 140 for the purposes of Dedicated Freight Corridor of the Railways. After the resumption of the Plot No. 139M to the extent of an area of 0.0140 hectare and acquisition of an area of 0.0440 hectares of plot No. 140M, the compensation in respect of the dwelling house of the petitioners has been determined under the National Rehabilitation and Settlement Policy, 2007 for the affected families by the competent authority and a sum of Rs. 33,42,507/- has been determined in respect of arazi/plot No. 139 and 140. However, the petitioners have not collected their share. 9. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been filed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel wherein identical grounds as taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 7 has been taken to resist the writ petition. 10. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners in response to the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 and 7 have reiterated their stand that the acquisition proceedings in respect of Arazi/Plot No. 139M stands lapsed as admittedly no award has been made in respect of the said plot within the time provided under Section 20-F (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The petitioners have right and title over the land in question. Once the land was notified under Section 20-A of the Railways Act it became mandatory to decide the objections under Section 20-D and make notification under Section 20-E for declaration. The petitioners have right and title over the land in question. Once the land was notified under Section 20-A of the Railways Act it became mandatory to decide the objections under Section 20-D and make notification under Section 20-E for declaration. In response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6, the petitioners submit that the resumption order dated 26.4.2017 is void as also barred by Rule 68 (2) (f) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. 11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 7 that the Government of India, Ministry of Railways issued Notification under Section 2 (37-A) of the Railways Act, 1989 inter-alia declaring Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor and Western Dedicated Freight Corridor as a Special Project for railways covering 9 States including the State of U.P. The Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor with a route length of 1873 Km. links Ludhiana in Punjab and Darkauni in West Bengal. The Western Dedicated Frieght Corridor covers a distance of 1504 Km., double line electric (2 x 25 Kv) track from Mumbai to Dadri and thus, the Freight Corridor is a project of National Importance and would be the lifeline to the economy of the country and would provide infrastructure to reduce the time period substantially in transporting goods as well as consumption of fuel involved in transportation of the goods in comparison of road transport. The total estimated cost of DFCC Project from Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction (Mughalsarai) to Prayagraj Junction is more than 3000 crores which has increased by a significant amount owing to delays in land acquisition and cost overruns. The date of commissioning the project is being shifting from time to time. The house of the petitioners is built upon plot No. 139M and 140 jointly. Compensation for the same has already been determined under National Rehabilitation Policy, but petitioners have not collected the same. The house of the petitioners situate at Km. 155+30 in village Pirallipur, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur is an obstruction in completion of the project and account of this only partial width of formation was available and mechanized track linking work along with electrical and signal works is not possible beyond the above location at Km. 155+30. Entire work in 181 Kms. 155+30 in village Pirallipur, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur is an obstruction in completion of the project and account of this only partial width of formation was available and mechanized track linking work along with electrical and signal works is not possible beyond the above location at Km. 155+30. Entire work in 181 Kms. section have almost been completed except this 50 meters patch of land which is pending due to the interim order in operation. It is, thus submitted that higher public purpose must give way to individual rights. 12. In the above backdrop, this Court is required to adjudicate the controversy and determine as to whether the claim of the writ petitioners is justified. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues arise for consideration in the writ petition: (i) Whether the writ petitioners have right, title and interest in plot Nos. 139 M, area 0.0140 hectare as claimed by them and if so, what is the nature of such right? (ii) Whether the proceedings in respect of the acquisition of Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare included in the Notification dated 24.6.2016, under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989, but not included in Notification/Declaration dated 12.1.2017 under Section 20-E and non declaration of award in respect thereof will result in proceedings having lapsed under Section 20-F (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 as claimed by the petitioners? (iii) Whether the resumption proceedings of the Plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectare under Section 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur by order dated 26.4.2017 is in accordance with law in the wake of the plot/land having settled in favour of the petitioners under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006? (iv) Whether higher public purpose will have preference over individual rights as argued by learned counsel for respondents? 13. Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid issues which arise for consideration in this writ petition, it would be apt to consider certain provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners claim their right over the Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare by virtue of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 13. Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid issues which arise for consideration in this writ petition, it would be apt to consider certain provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners claim their right over the Plot No. 139M, area 0.0140 hectare by virtue of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Section 67-A is being reproduced hereunder: “Section 67-A. Certain house sites to be settled with existing owners thereof: (1) If any person referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 64 has built a house on any land referred to in Section 63 of this Code, not being land reserved for any public purpose, and such house exists on the November 29, 2012, the site of such house shall be held by the owner of the house on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (2) Where any person referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 64, has built a house on any land held by a tenure holder (not being a government lessee) and such house exists on November 29, 2000, the site of such house, notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, be deemed to be settled with the owner of such house by the tenure holder on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purpose of sub-section (2), a house existing on November 29, 2000, on any land held by a tenure holder, shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been built by the occupant thereof and where the occupants are members of one family by the head of that family.” 14. Section 67-A (1) provides that if any agricultural labourer or village artisan belonging to scheduled caste, scheduled tribes or other backward class or a person of general category living below poverty line, has built a house on any land which may be allotted for abadi sites under Section 63, not being a land reserved for any public purpose and such house exists on 29th November, 2012, the site of such house shall be held by the owner of the house. That is to say it shall be settled with the owner of such house on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. 15. That is to say it shall be settled with the owner of such house on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. 15. Section 67-A (2) on the other hand provides that where any person belonging to the category given as above has built a house on any land held by a tenure holder and such house exists on 29th November, 2000, it be deemed to be settled with the owner of such house by the tenure holder. 16. In the case at hand, we are concerned with Section 67-A (1) only and Section 67-A (2) is not attracted as the petitioners have not built their house on any land held by a tenure holder. Now, the terms and conditions prescribed for regularization of certain house sites with their existing owners is referable to Rule 68 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 which is reproduced hereunder: “68. Settlement of house sites with existing owners thereof (Section 67 A): (1) Where any person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 64 has built a house on any land referred to in section 63 of the Code, not being land reserved for any public purpose and such house exists on twenty-ninth day of November 2012, the site of such house shall be held by the owner of the house on terms and conditions prescribed in rule 64. Note: For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the maximum area of the site settled under section 67-A (1) of the Code or the rules framed there under shall not exceed two hundred square meters. (2) Where any person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 64 has built a house on any land held by a tenure holder (not being a government lessee) and such house exists on twenty-ninth day of November 2000, the site of such house shall be deemed to be held by the owner of the house on the following terms and conditions: (a) the maximum area of the site settled under section 67-A (2) of the Code or the rules framed thereunder shall not exceed two hundred square meters. (b) the owner of the house as well as his heirs shall have a heritable interest in the site and shall also have unrestricted right to use the trees and wells existing on the site subject to existing rights of easements. (b) the owner of the house as well as his heirs shall have a heritable interest in the site and shall also have unrestricted right to use the trees and wells existing on the site subject to existing rights of easements. (c) he shall have a right to use the site for construction of a residential house, subject to existing rights of easement. (d) the owner of the house shall not be liable to pay to the tenure holder or the State Government any future rent in respect of the site. (e) the succession over the site shall be governed by personal law which the house owner was subject to. (f) the owner of the house and his heirs shall not be liable to ejectment on any ground whatsoever. (g) if the building is abandoned or if the owner thereof dies without any heir entitled to succeed, the land or site shall escheat to the State. (h) the tenure holder shall be allowed remission of the proportionate land revenue for the portion of his holding settled under this rule with house owners. The land shall also be classified as abadi in the Khatauni maintained under the Code.” 17. A perusal of the Rule 68 shows that the terms and conditions for settlement have been provided in Rule 64 of the 2016 Rules. The Rule 64 of the 2016 Rules is being quoted hereunder: “64. Maximum area and other conditions of allotment (Sections 63 and 64): (1) The maximum area of allotment under rule 61 or 62 shall not exceed 200 square meters. (2) The allottee of an abadi site shall not be liable to pay any premium or ground rent, but he shall hold such abadi site on the following terms and conditions: (a) The allottee shall build a house and shall begin to reside in it or use it for the purpose for which the site was allotted within a period of three years from the date of delivery of possession of the site allotted. (b) If the allottee fails to comply with the terms and conditions incorporated in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of this rule, the Collector may cancel the allotment in accordance with section 66: Provided that in the case of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe the aforesaid time limit for building of the house shall not apply. (b) If the allottee fails to comply with the terms and conditions incorporated in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of this rule, the Collector may cancel the allotment in accordance with section 66: Provided that in the case of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe the aforesaid time limit for building of the house shall not apply. (c) The allottee or his heirs shall not be entitled to transfer the site or the house built thereon by sale within a period of five years from the date of allotment. If the site or house is transferred after the expiry of five years from the date of allotment, the allottee shall not be eligible for re-allotment. (d) The allottee shall have heritable interest in the land so allotted. (e) The succession to the land shall be governed by the personal law of the allottee. (f) Subject to the provisions of section 66, the allottee or his heirs shall not be liable to be ejected from the land allotted or from the house built thereon. (g) If the land or the house built thereon is abandoned or if the allottee or his heirs die without any heir, the property shall re-vest in the Gram Panchayat.” 18. The settlement of the abadi site is subject to the provisions of Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code whereunder the Collector has been empowered to hold an inquiry suo moto or on the application of any person aggrieved by allotment of land and cancel the allotment after recording satisfaction that the allotment is irregular and in that event the right, title and interest of the allottee and every other person claiming through him in the land allotted shall cease. However, no application in this regard shall be entertained after the expiration of a period of three years from the date of allotment. 19. In the case at hand, we find that plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares (140 square meters) along with an area of 0.0440 hectares (440 square meters) of Plot No. 140M, i.e. a total area of 0.0580 (580 square meters) of land contained in Plot No. 139M and 140M have been settled with the petitioners and other heirs of Chavvinath. In the case at hand, we find that plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares (140 square meters) along with an area of 0.0440 hectares (440 square meters) of Plot No. 140M, i.e. a total area of 0.0580 (580 square meters) of land contained in Plot No. 139M and 140M have been settled with the petitioners and other heirs of Chavvinath. The Rule 68 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 governing the settlement of the house sites under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006 clearly provides that the maximum land that could have settled with an owner of house is 200 square meters. Here the heirs of Chhavinath have to be taken as one unit and thus could not be entitled to settlement of an area in excess of 200 square meters under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code vide order dated 30.8.2016. The said order was recalled by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 23.2.2021 and the name of the petitioners were expunged from the revenue records and the entry of Gaon Sabha was restored. However, this Court in Writ-C No. 17755 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ-C No. 10279 of 2021 (Kamla Devi vs. State of U.P. 4 others) set aside the order dated 23.2.2021 and allowed the writ petitions vide orders dated 4.8.2021 and 16.8.2021. The orders dated 4.8.2021 and 16.8.2021 have been passed in complete ignorance of the fact that under law land in excess of 200 square meters could not be settled in favour of an allottee or otherwise under the provisions of Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006. The house of the petitioners is admittedly built over Plot No. 140M and 139M, with major portion lying on Plot No. 140M. In the opinion of the Court, an area upto 200 square meters of land with structure thereon could be settled with the petitioners under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006 and not the entire area of 0.0580 hectares (580 square metes) comprised in Plot No. 140M and 139M. No right can be said to have accrued to the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 139M and 140M in excess of 200 square meters. No right can be said to have accrued to the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 139M and 140M in excess of 200 square meters. Thus, in our view, the plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares (140 square meters) does not stand settled with the petitioners along with the house constructed over it under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code. The petitioners are not the owners of the house as also the site under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The first issue thus stands answered against the petitioners. 20. Now, coming to the second issue as to whether the proceedings of acquisition of Plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares included in the Notification dated 24.6.2016, under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 but not included in the Notification/Declaration under Section 20-E and non declaration of award in respect thereof will result in the proceeding having lapsed under Section 20-F (2) of the Act, it would be apt to refer to the respective provisions under the Railways Act, 1989. Chapter IV-A of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the land acquisition for Special Railway Project. Section 20-A relates to the power to acquire land etc. and reads as under: “20A. Power to acquire land: (1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for execution of a special railway project, it may, by notification, declare its intention to acquire such land. (2) Every notification under sub-section (1), shall give a brief description of the land and of the special railway project for which the land is intended to be acquired. (3) The State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be, shall for the purposes of this section, provide the details of the land records to the competent authority, whenever required. (4) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in a vernacular language.” 21. Section 20-E of the Act deals with declaration of acquisition and reads as under: 20E. (4) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in a vernacular language.” 21. Section 20-E of the Act deals with declaration of acquisition and reads as under: 20E. Declaration of acquisition: (1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 20D has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections 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, that the land should be acquired for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) of section 20A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under sub-section (1) of section 20A for its acquisition, but no declaration under sub-section (1) of this section has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect: Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under subsection (1) of section 20A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. (4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other authority. 22. Perusal of the recitals contained in Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 reveals that the Central Government under the section merely declares its intention to acquire land under the Notification for special railways project. It is merely a proposal. However, the recitals of Section 20-E reveals that on publication of the Notification under Section 20-E, the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. It is merely a proposal. However, the recitals of Section 20-E reveals that on publication of the Notification under Section 20-E, the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Sub section (3) of Section 20-E provides that where in respect of any land, a Notification under Section 20-A (1) of the Act has been published, but no declaration under Section 20-E (1) of the Act is published within one year from the date of Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 20-E the said Notification shall cease to have effect. Section 20-F deals with determination of amount payable as compensation. Section 20-F (2) provides that an award is to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of Notification under Section 20-E (1) and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. 23. Applying the provisions discussed above to the case at hand, we find that, admittedly, the plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectare was included in the Notification dated 24.6.2016 under Section 20-A of the Act, but the said plot was not included in the Notification/Declaration dated 12.1.2017 under Section 20-E and as such, it can safely be concluded that the Plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectare has not been acquired for the Special Railway Project. If the plot has not been acquired, there is no question of the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is misconceived and is hereby rejected. The second issue is answered, accordingly, against the petitioners. 24. Now, coming to the third and most important issue as to whether the resumption proceedings in respect of Plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectare under Section 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, under the order dated 26.4.2017 of the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur is in accordance with law. We have already held that the Plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectare along with the structure (house) constructed thereon could not be settled with the petitioners under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as an area in excess of 200 square meters cannot be settled in favour of the petitioners under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006. We have already held that the Plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectare along with the structure (house) constructed thereon could not be settled with the petitioners under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as an area in excess of 200 square meters cannot be settled in favour of the petitioners under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, 2006. The settlement has attained finality so far as the petitioners are concerned only to the extent of 200 square meters of Plot No. 140M. Area in excess of 200 square meters of Plot No. 140M and 139M combined i.e. 380 square meters is liable to be treated to continue as Gaon Sabha land. The Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha as also the State Government cannot be said to be divested of any right, title or interest in the said plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares and 380 square meters of Plot No. 140M and we are of the considered view that the plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares could be resumed treating it to be Gaon Sabha Land. The third issue is thus answered against the petitioners. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 7 has argued that land in question i.e. Plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectare is involved in a project of national importance i.e. for construction of a dedicated freight corridor that is the eastern dedicated freight corridor with a route length of 1873 Km., linking Ludhiana in Punjab and Darkauni in West Bengal. The project should be the lifeline to the economy of the county and would provide the infrastructure to reduce the time period substantially in transporting goods as well as the consumption of fuel involved in transportation of the goods in comparison of road transportation. The dedicated freight corridor is the need of the day. The dedicated freight corridor will decongest already saturated road network and promote shifting of freight transport to more efficient rail transport. The total estimated cost of DFCC project from Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction to Prayagraj Junction is more than Rs. 3,000/- crores which has increased by a significant amount owing to delays in land acquisition and other cost overruns. The target date for commissioning of the project earlier fixed as June, 2022 has since passed. For commissioning, both the tracks Up and Down need to be completed along with signal, telecom and electrical supply. 3,000/- crores which has increased by a significant amount owing to delays in land acquisition and other cost overruns. The target date for commissioning of the project earlier fixed as June, 2022 has since passed. For commissioning, both the tracks Up and Down need to be completed along with signal, telecom and electrical supply. On account of the interim order dated 3.1.2019 operating in the case, hindrance is being caused by the private house of the petitioners at Km. 155+030 and the contractors are demanding hefty amount owing to stoppage of work, idling of man and machine. The house of the petitioners which is existing over the plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares is an obstruction in the completion of the project. It is, thus, prayed that the interim order passed by the Court is liable to be vacated on the principle that the higher public purpose shall have preference over individual rights. 26. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 7 and find substance in the same. The Dedicated Freight Corridor project of the railways is certainly a project of national importance. The project has certainly suffered on account of the present litigation and on account of the status quo order operating since 3.1.2019. 27. We find that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in plot No. 139M area 0.0140 hectares (140 square meters) situate in village Pirallipur, Pargana Haveli, Post Chunar, District Mirzapur as pleaded and the same does not stand settled with them under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The house of the petitioners is built over plot No. 140M and 139M with major portion lying over plot No. 140M. An area upto 200 square meters with structure thereon could alone be settled with the petitioners under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code and not the entire area of 0.0580 hectares (580 square meters) comprised in plot No. 140M and 139M. No right can be said to have accrued to the petitioners in respect of plot No. 139M and 140M in excess of 200 square meters. The respondent Nos. 1 and 7 have already determined the compensation in respect of the dwelling house constructed over plot No. 139M and 140M to the tune of Rs. 33,42,507/- which the petitioners are entitled to collect from the respondents. 28. The respondent Nos. 1 and 7 have already determined the compensation in respect of the dwelling house constructed over plot No. 139M and 140M to the tune of Rs. 33,42,507/- which the petitioners are entitled to collect from the respondents. 28. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order dated 3.1.2019 is discharged 29. In the connected Writ-C No. 17435 of 2018 separate order would be passed.