Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 460 (UTT)

Piyush Kumar v. District Magistrate, Haridwar

2024-07-05

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following relief:- (i) Issue writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 15.07.2022 and order dated 04.08.2022 as issued by respondent no. 2 (contained annexure no. 14 and 16 respectively) 2. The orders passed by Competent Authority Land Acquisition/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridwar are enclosed as Annexure 14 & 16 to the writ petition. By the order dated 15.07.2022, petitioners were asked to refund the amount paid as compensation to them, within fifteen days, failing which it may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Careful perusal of the said order reveals that the land, for which compensation was paid to each of the petitioners, was acquired under National Highways Act, 1956 and substantial amount was paid to each of the petitioners. Thereafter, an objection was filed by legal heirs of Megh Raj S/o Asha Ram stating that land comprised in Khasra No. 332, for which petitioners were paid compensation, is subject matter of litigation and interim order has been passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is still operating and by suppressing this fact, petitioners fraudulently received compensation. 4. By a subsequent letter dated 04.08.2022, Special Land Acquisition Officer requested District Collector, Haridwar to recover total sum of Rs.4,96,58,425/- from all the petitioners. The said letter is also challenged in the writ petition. 5. According to petitioners, Narendra Singh was recorded tenure holder of Khasra No. 332, Revenue Village Saliyar Salhapur Mustahakam, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, who was having 1/4th share in said Khasra; Narendra Singh sold his complete share in Khasra No. 332 by sale deed dated 30.06.2015 in favour of Mr. Piyush Kumar (petitioner no. 1) and one Mr. Naushad Ahmad, petitioner no. 1 and Naushad Ahmad became joint owner of the said land, having equal share based on the said sale deed; on 30.12.2020, Naushad Ahmad sold his undivided share in the said land to petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and all petitioners became joint owners, thus, according to petitioners, they were rightly paid compensation for the land purchased by them, which originally belonged to Narendra Singh. Thus, according to petitioners, the orders passed by Competent Authority Land Acquisition, asking the petitioners to refund the amount received as compensation, are unsustainable. 6. 2 to 4 and all petitioners became joint owners, thus, according to petitioners, they were rightly paid compensation for the land purchased by them, which originally belonged to Narendra Singh. Thus, according to petitioners, the orders passed by Competent Authority Land Acquisition, asking the petitioners to refund the amount received as compensation, are unsustainable. 6. Petitioners have relied upon an affidavit alleged to have been filed by their predecessor in interest – Narendra Singh, wherein it is stated that he has no objection against payment of compensation for the land comprised in Khasra No. 332 in favour of petitioner No. 1 and Naushad Ahmad. 7. Annexure 10 to the writ petition is a judgment dated 12.03.2013 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 252 of 2009. The said writ petition was filed by Mr. Narendra Singh. Perusal of the said judgment reveals that a suit for partition was filed by Narendra Singh under Section 176 of Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in respect of property situate in Village Saliyar Salhapur Mustahakam, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the said judgment coordinate Bench set aside the order passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Pauri in Second Appeal No. 56 of 2005-06 (Meghraj vs. Narendra Singh & others) and remanded the matter back to the Second Appellate Court to decide the second appeal afresh, after framing substantial questions of law. 8. Respondents to the writ petition filed Review Petition no. 403 of 2013 and coordinate Bench passed the following interim order on the review application on 20.08.2015:- “Considering the said submission, I direct that during the pendency of the applications, status-quo shall be maintained in respect of the property in dispute and the parties are directed not to create any third party interest till the next date of listing.” 9. The said review application was ultimately rejected by coordinate Bench vide order dated 18.10.2019. Since Megh Raj (respondent no. 1 in WPMS No. 252 of 2009) died during the interregnum, therefore, his legal representatives challenged the judgment dated 12.03.2013 and the order dated 18.10.2019 rejecting their review application, in SLP which was registered as SLP (Civil) Diary No. 46895 of 2019 and Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order on 31.01.2020 staying the order of remand passed by coordinate Bench on 12.03.2013. The said SLP was decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 21.11.2023. The said SLP was decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 21.11.2023. Para 7 to 11 of the said judgment are extracted below:- “7. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the parties have been litigating for decades, this was a case where the High Court ought to have summoned the original record and made an endeavor to decide the lis on merits. It is not a case where the High Court, during the course of hearing on merits, found that certain factual issues need to be canvassed before the Second Appellate Authority or are required to be determined afresh, for which the remand of the case could be justified. 8. We further find that during the pendency of these proceedings, third party rights are stated to have been created, which too cannot be determined by this Court for want of proper pleadings and relevant record. 9. Taking into consideration all these factors, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a fresh consideration by the High Court which is the best suited forum for the parties for effective resolution of their multilayer disputes. We, however, do not express any opinion as to whether the findings returned by the Second Appellate Authority with reference to the issues formulated by it, are sustainable or not. 10. For the reasons assigned above, the appeals are allowed in part; the impugned orders dated 12.03.2013 and 18.10.2019 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to decide Writ Petition Nos. 251/2009 and 252/2009 and other connected matters, if any, afresh and after hearing all the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have been litigating for decades, the High Court is requested to decide the matter(s) preferably within six weeks. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 10. It is thus apparent that the partition suit filed by Nrendra Singh is yet to be decided. From the documents brought on record, it is revealed that Megh Raj, who was respondent no. 1 in WPMS No. 252 of 2009, is Uncle of Narendra Singh (petitioner in the said writ petition). The land, of which partition was sought, originally belonged to Late Asha Ram, who had two sons, namely, Deshraj & Meghraj. Narendra Singh is son of Deshraj. Thus, it is an ancestral property, which is sought to be partitioned. 11. 1 in WPMS No. 252 of 2009, is Uncle of Narendra Singh (petitioner in the said writ petition). The land, of which partition was sought, originally belonged to Late Asha Ram, who had two sons, namely, Deshraj & Meghraj. Narendra Singh is son of Deshraj. Thus, it is an ancestral property, which is sought to be partitioned. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridwar in which it is stated that name of petitioners are not recorded in revenue record and on the date of publication of notification, under Section 3D(1) of National Highways Act, 1956, name of Mr. Revinder Singh, Mr. Narendra Singh S/o Deshraj, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Mehak Singh S/o Meghraj, Mr. Harsh Kumar Saini S/o Sukhendra Kumar, Smt. Anju Saini W/o Late Sukhendra Kumar are recorded as tenure holder in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 332. In para 12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 30.06.2015, executed by Mr. Narendra Singh in favour of petitioner no. 1 and Naushad Ahmad, has been filed, which is pending before Civil Court. In para 14 of the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that Mr. Narendra Singh (predecessor in interest of petitioners) submitted an application on 21.09.2022 stating that petitioners have fraudulently obtained compensation by relying upon an affidavit, while he had never given any affidavit, supporting the claim of petitioners. Para 14 of the counter affidavit is extracted below:- “14. That the contents of para 10 of the writ petition are matter of record. The burden of proof the same lies upon the petitioners but it is further submitted that Shri Narendra Singh S/o Deshraj Singh made an application dated 21.09.2021 in the office of respondent no. 2, stating therein that Shri Piyush Kumar and others have received compensation of their part by making a False affidavit same may be recovered from the petitioners and compensation may be awarded to him. True copy of the said letter dated 21.09.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-1 to this affidavit.” 12. It is thus apparent that the land comprised in Khasra No. 332 in revenue Village Saliyar Salhapur Mustahakam, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar is subject matter of various litigations, including partition suit filed by the predecessor in interest of petitioners. It is thus apparent that the land comprised in Khasra No. 332 in revenue Village Saliyar Salhapur Mustahakam, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar is subject matter of various litigations, including partition suit filed by the predecessor in interest of petitioners. No partition has been effected uptill now, therefore, share of the parties is not defined. 13. Counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 reveals that title of the petitioners is in question, as the sale deed executed by Mr. Narendra Singh on 30.06.2015 in favour of petitioner no. 1 and Naushad Ahmad is subject to challenge in a suit for cancellation of sale deed. In view of ongoing disputes regarding the land in question, the title of the petitioners is under cloud, therefore, they cannot claim the entire amount as compensation to the exclusion of other tenure holders. 14. Petitioners name was altogether missing from the notification dated 30.08.2021 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and based on their objection filed under section 3C(1) of the Act, compensation was paid to them in view of undertaking given by them in their affidavit dated 28.05.2022 that they will refund the money received as compensation, with interest, in case of any dispute. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that other persons also have share in the acquired land, therefore, they are entitled to proportionate share in the amount released as compensation. Since petitioners alone were paid the entire compensation to the exclusion of other co-sharers, therefore, on the objections of the co-sharers, Special Land Acquisition Officer rightly asked the petitioners to return the amount received as compensation. 16. Section 3H(3) and Section 3H(4) of The National Highways Act, 1956 deal with such contingency, where, more than one person claim to be interested in the amount payable as compensation, which are reproduced below:- “3H(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. 3H(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.” 17. In the present case, compensation was paid to petitioners under the impression that they alone are owners of the acquired land. Since, other co-sharers have title in the acquired land, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Competent Authority Land Acquisition to follow the provisions contained in Section 3H(3) or Section 3H(4) of The National Highways Act, 1956. Since petitioners were paid the entire compensation under false impression that there is no other co-sharer in the acquired land, therefore, by the impugned notice, Competent Authority Land Acquisition/Special Land Acquisition Officer has corrected the mistake. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The Competent Authority shall be at liberty to take recourse to the provisions contained in National Highways Act, 1956 for resolving the dispute as to apportionment of the amount of compensation.