Allahabad High Court
Raj Narayan Singh And 6 Others vs Union Of India And 18 Others on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15521 of 2021 Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 18 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akanksha Gaur,C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 and Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel, appears for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.9.2020 passed by the respondent no. 4- Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, NHAI, Azamgarh, so far it relates to rejection of the objection of the petitioners under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 19561. In addition to above, a direction has been sought upon the respondents concerned not to release the compensation and refer the dispute of apportionment of compensation under Section 3H(4) of the Act.
Indisputably the claim for apportionment of compensation is in respect of plot no. 311 at Village Kishundaspur no. 2, Deokhari, Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh which was acquired for extension of NH-233 in the year 2013 under the Act. The case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid plot no. 311 was created from old plot nos. 213 and 362. It is alleged that in the basic year Khatauni of 1359 F, plot no. 362 stood recorded in the name of petitioners' ancestors along with others including Bheeta, Pond and Banjar. But by manipulation of revenue records and by showing an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, dated 30.10.1955, the private-respondents got their names exclusively recorded over the entire plot number 362 which, now, constitutes part of the new number 311 acquired under the Act. It is alleged that proceeding was taken by the State for cancelling the forged entry over plot no. 311; and that the Gaon Sabha has also filed a revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, for correction of the alleged forged entry over plot no. 362. It is claimed that the petitioners have also filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.10.1955 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which remains pending. By claiming that the dispute remains pending before the consolidation courts, a prayer was made before the Competent Authority (fourth respondent), through an application dated 08.06.2020, that till such time the dispute is decided by the consolidation courts, payment / disbursement of compensation in favour of the private respondents be stopped. By the impugned order dated 25.9.2020 the Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Azamgarh (fourth respondent) rejected the application of the petitioner. Assailing the impugned order it is contended that the rejection of the objection of the petitioners is illegal and erroneous and is in teeth of the provisions of Section 3H(4) of the Act.
A perusal of the record reveals that neither the notification under Section 3A, nor the declaration of acquisition under Section 3D or the award determining the compensation under Section 3G, has been enclosed by the petitioners. Even no statement is made in the petition to enable us to evince the date of the notification/ award issued/ passed under the Act.
The objection/application dated 8.6.2020 which the petitioners claim to have filed under Section 3H of the Act has been enclosed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. It reads as follows:
"सेवा में, श्रीमान विशेष भूमि आज्ञपति अधिकारी महोदय आजमगढ़, जिला आजमगढ़ महोदय निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी विजय प्रकाश व जय प्रकाश व बृजेश पुत्र राम नगीना सिंह सा० देवखरी परगना निजामाबाद तहसील सदर, जिला आजमगढ़ का मूल निवासी है। हम प्रार्थी का एक वाद न्यायालय ब०अ० चकबन्दी न्यायालय में काफी समय से विचाराधीन है जिसमें स०च०अ० के वाद सं० 35 ता०फे० 30.10.1955 से सहायक चकबन्दी अधिकारी द्वारा अवैध हस्तानान्तरण करके फर्जी कार्यवाही करके हम वादी गणों/प्रार्थीगणों के पूर्वजो का नाम निरस्त करके लक्ष्मी पुत्र उमराव का तनहा नाम सा० गाटा सं०213 क व ख हाल नं० 362 पर दर्ज कर दिया गया। चूंकि उक्त आराजी वर्तमान समय से विवादित है। तथा मौके पर परती है। लेकिन N.H. 233 सारनाथ से लुम्बनि मार्ग में सन् 2013 में अधिग्रहित कर ली गयी है। लेहाजा अब जब मुवाईजा का भुगतान गलट तरीके से लक्ष्मी पुत्र उमराव के वारिसों को किये जाने का प्रयास S.L.O विभाग द्वारा किया जा रहा है। जबकि इसके पूर्व में लिपिक S.L.O श्री योगेन्द्र सिंह (सेवानिवृति) को पूरे प्रकरण से अवगत कराया गया था। तब से आपका मुवाईजा गाटा सं० 362 का रूका था। तथा सम्पूर्ण गाटा जो 362 अधिग्रहित किया गया है इसमें पूरी तरह से फ्राड करके आराजी नं० 362 पर नाम दर्ज किया गया है उक्त गाटा सं० 362 कभी भी विपक्षीगणों की नहीं रही है। तमाम फर्जी आदेश का पालन करके/ अमलदरामद करके गलत फायदा उठाया गया है जो पूर्ण रूप से गलत है तथा फ्राड पर आधारित आदेश है। लेहाजा जब तक वाद का निस्तारण अतिरिक्त रूप से नहीं हो जाता है। तब तक गाटा सं० 362 का वर्तमान का भुगतान रोक दिया जाय।
अतः श्रीमान जी से विनम्र निवेदन है कि उपरोक्त परिस्थितियों को ध्यान में रखते हुए जब तक श्रीमान न्यायालय में विचाराधीन वादों का निस्तारण अन्तिम रूप से नहीं हो जाता है। तब तक सा० गाटा सं० 213 क व ख हाल नं० 362 का भुगतान/ मुवाईजा रोक दिया जाय।
दिनांकः- 8.6.20 प्रार्थी ह०अप० 1- विजय प्रकाश 2- जय प्रकाश 3- बृजेश पुत्र राम नगीना सा० देवखरी, त० सदर, जिला आजमगढ़
नोटः- चूंकि लाक डाऊन की वजह से राजस्व न्यायालय बन्द है ज्यों ही लाक डाउन वाद न्यायालय खुलेगी मेरे द्वारा तुरन्त कागजात मुकदमा संबंधी श्रीमान S.L.O के समक्ष (लिपिक) महोदय को उपलब्ध करा दिया जायेगा। चूंकि वर्तमान समय में इस गाटे के संबंध में तीन मुकदमा न्यायालयो में अलग-अलग विचाराधीन है।
विवादित गाटा सं० 362 सा०न० 213 क व ख"
It is alleged in this objection that by playing fraud, the name of the applicants' ancestors was struck off by an order dated 30.10.1955 and the name of Lakshmi s/o Umrao was exclusively recorded. It is pertinent to note here that this application nowhere raises any claim for compensation or apportionment of compensation of the land in question. It is further important to note that there is no specific averment in the objection dated 8.6.2020 or in the writ petition that the petitioners had no prior knowledge of the alleged fraudulent entry in the revenue record existing since 1955. However, in the objection of 8.6.2020 it is stated by the petitioners that prior to this the clerk in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, one Yongendra Singh, who has since retired, was informed about the entire facts.
A perusal of the first paragraph of the order impugned reveals that the first consolidation proceeding started in the year 1955 and was denotified in the year 1962 thereafter second started in the year 1981 and was denotified in the year 2014. Interestingly, the petitioners have not specifically disclosed in their petition as to when the first consolidation started and was finalized and whether in between there was a second consolidation as well. The Competent Authority, after noticing the arguments made on behalf of the counsel for the private-respondents, upon finding that prior to the year 2019-2020 no objection with regard to plot no. 311 was taken by the objectors, despite there being two consolidation proceedings in between, by inferring that the appeal against the order dated 30.10.1955 was filed in the year 2019-2020 just to make the case disputed, rejected the application of the petitioners. Ordinarily, where a dispute is there with regard to apportionment of compensation, a reference under section 3-H (4) of the Act is mandatory but here we find that the dispute related to the correctness of the order dated 30.10.1955 of a consolidation court which could be examined by the consolidation courts themselves under the scheme of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1952 in view of the bar put by section 49 of that Act. Thus, making a reference to the principal civil court would be an exercise in futility. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order does not call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioners would be at liberty to contest the proceedings before the consolidation courts and may institute a suit in the civil court for such relief as they may be advised. Any observation made in our order would not prejudice the claim of the petitioners before the consolidation court or the civil court. Subject to above, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2021 A. V. Singh