Allahabad High Court
Abrar Ahmad And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 21 April, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1237 of 2023 Petitioner :- Abrar Ahmad And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahid Ali Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present petition has been filed with the following relief:-
"(A) Issue a writ or a order or a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding concerned respondent to pay land compensation and its interest and Solatium to the petitioners from Award dated 07.10.1987 of acquisition of petitioners agriculture land of 7.2 acre acquired from Gata no.44 and 587 situated in Village Aara khurd Tehsil Handia District Allahabad (now Prayagraj) were acquired in year 1980-81 for project namely Rampur Rajbaha Canal branch of Sharda Sahayak Khand-39, Allahabad (now Prayagraj) for interest of justice."
The petitioners herein (five in number) seek to submit that their land in Gata no.44 and 587 of an area of 7.2 acres was acquired in the year 1980-81 as per the proposal of respondent no.5 in its letter dated 12.06.1981 for the project namely Rampur Rajbaha Canal, digging and construction by Sharda Sahayak Khand-39, Allahabad (now Prayagraj). It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are running from pillar to post for last more than 30 years to seek compensation for their land utilised for Rampur Rajbaha. The award was declared on 07.10.1987 in respect of the petitioner's agricultural land. The copy of the award is appended as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition.
It is then stated therein that the letter dated 01.06.2016 had been issued by the respondents rejecting the consent letter submitted by the petitioners asking them to furnish fresh consent letter on the prescribed format by making minor corrections. The copy of the letter dated 01.06.2016 sent to the petitioners by registered post is appended at page-'33' of the paper book.
Reference has been made to various letters issued, thereafter, to submit that the plots in question namely plot nos.44 and 587 situated in village Aara Khurd Tehsil Handia District Allahabad had been utilised for construction of Rampur Rajbaha.
In the written instruction supplied by the learned Standing counsel, a categorical statement has been made that for construction of Rampur Rajbaha, Arazi nos.44 and 587 had never been acquired. The acquisition was made with regard to Arazi nos.926, 755, 756, 753, 752, 401, 468, 467 and 454. The possession memo with respect to the plots in question has been appended as Annexure-2 to the written instructions. It is stated therein that most of the tenure holders had received compensation and those who did not receive compensation, money has been deposited in the concerned account. A categorical stand has been taken that Gata nos.44 and 587 had not been acquired.
A copy of the written instructions submitted by the respondent has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioners to go through the same and submit his reply. In the supplementary affidavit today, it is stated that the statement in the written instructions that Arazi nos.44 and 587 were not acquired for canal project under the Land Acquisition Act is incorrect. It is admitted that in the award dated 07.10.1987, there is no reference of Gata nos.44 and 587 belonging to the petitioners. Reference has further been made to the letter dated 01.06.2016 which is appended at page-'33' of the paper book and a copy of the same has again been filed with the written instructions.
It is then submitted that the petitioners and other tenure holders had submitted applications on 28.06.2016 supported with their affidavits to respondent no.6 and took their signatures and also send the said application by registered post. It is then stated that the petitioners land were taken by mutual consent by the respondents and hence no award was required to be made. A copy of the application dated 28.06.2016 with the affidavit of consent of the petitioners is appended as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is then stated that the respondents are trying to mislead the Court in making submissions that the plots in question have never been acquired.
Having noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the documents appended with the supplementary affidavit. The alleged consent letter submitted by the petitioners alongwith their affidavits on 28.06.2016 is appended at page-'24' onwards. A perusal of the documents appended from pages-'12' to '22' indicates that initially the consent letter was signed by the petitioners on 17.05.2016 which was not accepted by the competent authority and the letter dated 01.06.2016 was, thus, written asking the petitioners to submit their consent in the prescribed format. The document dated 28.06.2016 appended at page-'12' of the supplementary affidavit is a letter written by the petitioner no.1 herein. It is sought to be stated therein that the copy of the consent letter alongwith the notary affidavit had already made and further proceedings in this regard was required to be undertaken. The consent letter along with the affidavit appended from page-'24' further bears the date as 02.06.2016, the same does not appear to have been submitted in the prescribed format enclosed with the letter dated 01.06.2016. The format in which the petitioners were required to submit their consent has not been appended either with the writ petition or the supplementary affidavit.
Be that as it may, there is no receipt of the consent letter dated 02.06.2016, the mode of the submission of the same is not on record.
The petitioners herein have taken contradictory stand in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit with regard to the acquisition of the plot in question. In the writ petition, it is stated that the plots in question had been acquired in the year 1989-90 and in the supplementary affidavit, it is stated that the plots in question were taken by mutual consent and the consent letter was submitted in the year, 2016.
It is, thus, evident that the writ petition has been filed with incorrect and distorted facts in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners and as such no relief can be granted.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as misconceived. However, it is open for the petitioners to ventilate their grievances before the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 to ventilate such grievances and in case of such proceedings initiated, the dismissal of the writ petition or any observations made hereinabove will not come in the way of the petitioners.
Order Date :- 21.4.2023 Harshita