Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Industrial ... vs Musammat Bhikhiya And 2 Others on 20 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24942-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40986 of 2024 Petitioner :- Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority, Through Managing Director, Lakhanpur Respondent :- Musammat Bhikhiya And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by ADM (Land Acquisition), Kanpur Nagar in Case no.41/2011 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the said order, the application filed by respondent no.1 for payment of enhanced compensation in terms of judgement dated 08.12.2006 in Land Acquisition Reference No.105/1999, Dhaniram and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others has been allowed.
2. The acquisition was for the benefit of the petitioner and, therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant petition has been filed.
3. It is submitted by Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the application was ante-dated to bring it within limitation period prescribed under Section 28A of the Act. The said submission is being made on the basis that the notice of filing of the said application was issued to UPSIDC for the first time in the year 2011.
4. In order to ascertain the correctness of the said submission, we required the Additional District Magistrate, Land Acquisition, Kanpur Nagar to produce original records. In compliance thereof the original record was produced before us. We also gave opportunity to Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner to go through the original record. Additionally, an affidavit was filed by respondent no.2 annexing therewith the relevant parts of the original record including the register recording receipt of applications.
5. A perusal of the said register indicates that the application of respondent no.1 was received on 01.03.2007.
6. At Serial no.45 is a reference to an application filed by one Kuwar Singh dated 03.02.2015 and at Serial no.46 to an application filed by Vanshi Lal and others dated 14.11.2003.
7. It is submitted by Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the applications have not been entered according to the seriatum and, this reveals that the register was prepared subsequently and no reliance can be placed on the same.
8. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State states that earlier there was no practice of maintaining any register and at later point of time, the said exercise was held and all pending applications were entered in the register and this might be the reason why the applications have not been entered according to the date of receipt.
9. At this stage, we may notice that against the award of the reference court on basis of which application under Section 28A was filed, a first appeal was filed by the petitioner bearing No.90 of 2007 before this court. It remained pending from 2011 and was ultimately dismissed on 13.05.2011. It appears that for the said reason, the application under Section 28A was kept pending and no notice was issued to the petitioner. However, after the dismissal of the appeal, respondent no.1 filed an application before respondent no.2 on 12.10.2011 to decide his application under Section 28A of the Act. Thereby, he brought to the notice of respondent no.2 the fact that First Appeal No.90 of 2007 had been dismissed by this court vide judgement and order dated 13.05.2011. On 26.12.2011, respondent no.2 after recording the aforesaid facts, issued notice to the petitioner fixing 09.01.2012.
10. Apart from it, certified copy of the application under Section 28A annexed with the writ petition bears endorsement of the application having been received on 01.03.2007. There is another endorsement bearing signatures of ADM, Land Acquisition dated 01.03.2007. These endorsements on the application also prove that the application was duly filed on 01.03.2007.
11. In such circumstances, we are not ready to accept the submission that the application was filed for the first time in the year 2011 when notice was issued to the petitioner.
12. As the material on record indicates that application was filed by respondent no.1 within 90 days of the date of award on basis of which enhancement was sought, therefore, if the application was kept pending because of the pendency of appeal against the judgement of the reference court and notice was not issued to the petitioner immediately upon filing of the application, respondent no.1 cannot be made to suffer for the same.
13. No other submission has been made.
14. The petition lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Ankit.