Allahabad High Court
Satish Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 31 August, 2020
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13066 of 2020 Petitioner :- Satish Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram for the State and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh for the respondent no. 2 and 3.
Present petition has been preferred inter alia with following reliefs.
A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow construction activities in respect of petitioner's plot Khasra no. 13 area 2500 Sq.Y. Village Gadichaukhandi, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide representation and sanction map of petitioner in respect of his plot Khasra no. 13 area 2500 Sq.Y. Village Gadichaukhandi, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar in the light of Ajit Singh Chauhan vs. State of U.P. and others Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43275 of 2015 decided on 16.02.2018 by this Hon'ble Court.
At the very outset, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the NOIDA has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on two folds, firstly, the land in dispute is a acquired land. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published on 11.9.2001 and 27.10.2006 respectively. The competent authority had taken over possession of the acquired land on 02.12.2006. Finally, the award was made on 30.12.2013. As such, he submits that admittedly the property in dispute has been purchased after notifications of Sections 4 and 6. Once the possession has been taken over then the same has vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The said transaction is nullity as he purchased the land under acquisition. After notification, the purchaser acquired no right, title or interest in the land (Ref. U.P. Jal Nigam vs. M/s Kalra Properties reported in AIR 1996 SC 1170). Secondly, once the land has been vested in the State free from all encumbrances and thereafter the same has been handed over to the Development Authority to carry out the planned development, then the relief, as has been asked for, cannot be accorded over the acquired land.
We have proceeded to examine the record in question and objection, as has been taken by counsel for the Development Authority and are of the opinion that in the aforementioned circumstances no positive direction can be issued in the matter. However, it is always open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as available in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.8.2020 A.K.Srivastava