Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar vs Dedicated Freight Corridor And 6 Others on 14 March, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:46717-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22029 of 2020 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- Dedicated Freight Corridor And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Keshav,Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Pranjal Mehrotra,Rachna Vyas,Syed Wajid Ali connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22143 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shiv Das Respondent :- Dedicated Freight Corridor And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Keshav,Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Rachna Vyas,Syed Wajid Ali Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Ms. Rachna Vyas, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and perused the record.
2. Since both the afore-captioned writ petitions contain challenge to the same order dated 22.02.2020, both the petitions are being decided by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, Writ C No. 22029 of 2020 is being treated as leading case.
3. By the impugned order dated 22.02.2020, the Competent Authority, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Chandauli has directed recovery of amount of compensation received by the petitioners on the ground that, as per the spot position, the compensation is payable in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7 for the reason that over the Gata in question, the house of the said respondents is constructed.
4. The facts of the case are that the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited, Ministry of Railways, ( in short "DFCCIL") ,for its special rail project, acquired the land in dispute vide notifications dated 01.07.2011 and 14.12.2011 respectively, issued under sections 20-A and 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989. The award was declared on 15.11.2016 and, pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioners and after completion of formalities, a sum of Rs.17,02,995/- (rupees seventeen lacs two thousand nine hundred ninety five) was paid to the petitioners.
5. The case of the petitioners is that at the instance of private respondents, the order impugned has been passed directing recovery of a sum of Rs.3,38,534/-, (rupees three lacs thirty eight thousand five hundred thirty four) from each petitioner out of the amount received by the petitioners, although the Competent Authority-respondent No. 4 had, after declaring the award, become functus officio and, thereafter, it was not open for him to directly or indirectly hold that the petitioners were entitled to a lesser amount of compensation and that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,38,534/- was recoverable from each of them. Learned counsel has, in support of his contention, referred to the award, revenue records as well as the proforma/chart containing names of the petitioners and submitted that there was no illegality in declaring the award as well as making payment of compensation and in any case the matter could be referred to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under section 20-H(4) of the Act, 1989
6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand, by referring to the counter affidavit filed by Tehsildar concerned, submits that the land belonging to the petitioners is having separate number, over which no residential house is constructed and due to clerical error, the compensation of residential area was also awarded in favour of the petitioners along with their agricultural land and, therefore, impugned recovery is justified. He has referred to annexures to the counter affidavit, which include a copy of application dated 20.02.2020 filed by respondent No. 6 before the competent authority and also few inquiry reports dated 05.02.2020 and 03.07.2020.
7. Ms. Rachna Vyas, learned counsel appearing for private respondents, by referring to the counter affidavit filed by private respondents, submits that over Gata No. 106 admeasuring 0.0434 hectares, residential house of the private respondents exists and, therefore, though private respondents were entitled to receive compensation, the same has been wrongly paid to the petitioners and, hence, the impugned recovery is justified.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that after the land was acquired, an award was declared and the compensation was paid to the petitioners. In case rival claim was made by the private respondents as regards the nature and extent of the property acquired as well as with respect to apportionment of compensation or entitlement to receive compensation, the remedy available to the person aggrieved was to seek a reference under section 20-H(4) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under:
"(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."
9. The Court further finds that private respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Competent Authority on 20.02.2020 requesting payment of compensation and just after two days, the order impugned was passed on 22.02.2020 directing recovery from the petitioners. As regards inquiry reports, the first inquiry report dated 05.02.2020 has been signed by the officer of DFCCIL observing that house of private respondents exists over Gata No. 106 measuring 0.0434 hectares and the second inquiry report dated 03.07.2020 has been prepared by the revenue authorities recording the same aspect. Significantly, one inquiry report is prior to passing of the order impugned and the other is subsequent thereto. Both the reports do not show as to whether the spot inspection was carried out in the presence of the petitioners and the Court finds the reports apparently ex-parte. It was not a case of any clerical error but determination of substantive rights and entitlements. This could not be done in the above manner.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned cannot sustain and the remedy to the person aggrieved lies under section 20-H (4) of the Railways Act, 1989, as the dispute is either as to apportionment of the amount of compensation or entitlement of the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable and such a dispute can be referred to the decision of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.
11. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
12. The order impugned dated 22.02.2020 passed by the Competent Authority, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Chandauli (respondent No. 4) is hereby quashed.
13. The parties are left at liberty to invoke provision under section 20-H(4) of Railways Act, 1989.
Order Date :- 14.3.2024 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)