Patna High Court - Orders
Usha Devi vs The National Highway, Authority Of ... on 1 May, 2017
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3050 of 2017
======================================================
Usha Devi
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The National Highway, Authority of India & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4778 of 2017
======================================================
Shanti Prasad @ Smt. Shanti Devi
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.3050 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar Panday
For N.H.A.I. : Mr. S.N. Pathak
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan-Sc25
(In CWJC No.4778 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mauli Chaurasia
For N.H.A.I. : Mr. S.N. Pathak
For the Respondent/s (Union of India): Mr. S.D. Sanjay (Addl. S.C.)
Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur (CGC)
For the State : Mr. Subhash Chandra Yadav-Gp15
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, AC to GP-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 01-05-2017Second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 9 and 10.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 4778 of 2017, seeks time to file reply to the aforesaid second supplementary counter affidavit.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents points out that the lands of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4778 of 2017 were Patna High Court CWJC No.3050 of 2017 (4) dt.01-05-2017 2/4 acquired in two phases. In first phase, 1.5 decimal, equivalent to 683 sqf., of the land was acquired and 80% compensation of the acquired land was paid to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4778 of 2017. Learned counsel further submits that out of the aforesaid acquired area, only building of petitioner was demolished up to 375 sqf. area and the work of dismantle is to be made in respect of 308 sqf. He further submits that in second phase, 1 decimal land was acquired. Learned counsel further submits that the supplementary affidavit has been filed in respect of second acquisition because there is no dispute in respect of first acquisition, but the petitioner by placing wrong facts before this Court got stayed the demolition proceeding in respect of the first acquisition of the land. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since there is no dispute in respect of acquisition of first phase, the concerned officials may be permitted to demolish the house of the petitioner in respect of the remaining area which were acquired in first acquisition proceeding.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, in C.W.J.C. No. 4778 of 2017, submits that respondents had already demolished the house of the petitioner in the year 2012 in the light of acquisition made by way of first acquisition proceeding, but again they are adamant to demolish the entire Patna High Court CWJC No.3050 of 2017 (4) dt.01-05-2017 3/4 house of the petitioner, taking advantage of illegal acquisition of second phase and as a matter of fact, the respondents want to dismantle the house of the petitioner in the light of second phase of acquisition.
Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, I find that the first acquisition proceeding is not in dispute and 80% of compensation in respect of first acquisition proceeding has already been paid to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4778 of 2017 and therefore, in my view, the respondents are entitled to dismantle the house of the petitioner upto the area which was acquired in first phase of acquisition.
It is made clear that the respondents are not entitled to proceed to dismantle the house of the petitioner which is covered by second phase of acquisition and, therefore, order, dated 12.04.2017, stands modified to the extent that the respondents may proceed to dismantle the house of the petitioner up to the area which was acquired by the first phase of acquisition.
The petitioner may file reply to the counter affidavit. So far as C.W.J.C. No. 3050 of 2017 is concerned, learned counsel for the State seeks time to file counter affidavit. It is made clear that counter affidavit of the State shall be filed by tomorrow after serving a copy of the same to the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.3050 of 2017 (4) dt.01-05-2017 4/4 for the petitioner. The petitioner may file reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit by next Monday.
Let this matter be listed on next Monday under the same heading.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.) Rakhi U