Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 399 (ALL)

Manish Kumar Chaudhary v. Mahendra Singh

2025-02-28

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Nigamendra Shukla, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for petitioners states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit to short counter affidavit and wants final disposal of the matter at the admission stage itself without any issuance of notice to respondent no. 2. 3. This writ petition assails the order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC II, Hapur dated 29.01.2025 in Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2023, Mahendra Singh vs. Manish Kumar and others. 4. The land of respondent no. 1 was acquired by National Highways Authority of India for road widening. The matter was referred by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)/Competent Authority, under Section 3H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956 for the consideration of apportionment of the compensation amount. The Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.01.2025 has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Mahendra Singh, respondent no. 1, whose land was acquired, had initially entered into an oral settlement on 21.06.2004 and, thereafter, written settlement was entered on 15.06.2008 by Mahendra Singh in favour of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. According to him, once the written family settlement was arrived, petitioners are entitled for compensation of the land acquired by National Highways Authority of India and denial by competent court as well as the court below is against the dictum of law. Heavy reliance has been placed upon the decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others, Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2014 decided on 31.07.2020. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once family settlement was entered between the parties and acted upon, the court below was not competent to hold otherwise. It is further contended that respondent no. 1 i.e. father of petitioners is creating the dispute and he has already given no objection on 16.11.2023 in favour of petitioners for releasing the compensation as per the family settlement of 2004 and 2008. 7. Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. It is further contended that respondent no. 1 i.e. father of petitioners is creating the dispute and he has already given no objection on 16.11.2023 in favour of petitioners for releasing the compensation as per the family settlement of 2004 and 2008. 7. Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that it is a self acquired property of Mahendra Singh and already a partition suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending consideration before court of Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur. According to him, petitioners in the year 2022 have instituted a declaratory suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and family settlement had not taken place between the parties. There is a categorical denial on the part of respondent no. 1 as to the execution of family settlement between the parties. He further submits that till the partition suit is decided by competent court, share cannot be ascertained and compensation cannot be released in favour of petitioners in terms of alleged family settlement of 2004 or 2008. He also contended that respondent no. 1, Mahendra Singh had purchased the land acquired by National Highways Authority of India through sale- deed dated 06.08.1965 from Nidhan Singh, Harpal Singh and Ikbal Singh, copies of which have been brought on record as annexure-1 to short counter affidavit. 8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that Mahendra Singh had purchased the land in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 1033, 1036 through sale-deed dated 06.08.1965 from Nidhan Singh, Harpal Singh and Ikbal Singh which has been acquired by National Highways Authority of India in the year 2018. Moreover, a partition suit filed by Mahendra Singh under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against other co-sharers is pending consideration at the second appellate stage before Board of Revenue. The petitioners before this Court had already instituted a declaratory suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before competent authority which is also pending consideration. The issue in regard to whether the family settlement was arrived or not is still under cloud and respondent no. 1, who is the father of petitioners has specifically denied such oral family settlement of the year 2004 and alleged to have been written down in the year 2008. The issue in regard to whether the family settlement was arrived or not is still under cloud and respondent no. 1, who is the father of petitioners has specifically denied such oral family settlement of the year 2004 and alleged to have been written down in the year 2008. Once there is a complete denial on the part of father of petitioners, and he is pursuing the partition suit against other co-sharers and also contesting the declaratory suit filed by petitioners, I find that no interference is required by this Court. 10. The court below rightly after considering all the material on record held that respondent no. 1, Mahendra Singh on 18.01.2025 had got his statement recorded wherein he had stated that he wants that compensation should be paid to him and had also filed an affidavit to this effect. The court below after recording the finding that land acquired by NHAI was of respondent no. 1, Mahendra Singh, who is still alive and the compensation amount is about 2 crores 30 lacs for which the litigation is going on and from perusal of the documents, it is clear that owner in possession of acquired land was Mahendra Singh, thus, no question arises for consideration of oral family settlement dated 21.06.2004 and settlement dated 15.06.2008 for apportioning the compensation amount between his sons. 11. Once the father himself has denied the execution of any family settlement with his sons and made statement before the court below that land which is recorded in his name having been acquired by NHAI, and the compensation be paid to him, no question arises for the Court to entertain the petition on behalf of his sons at this stage for directing the release of the compensation in favour of them. Reliance placed upon the decision of Apex Court is distinguishable in the present facts of the present case. 12. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.