Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 18 December, 2020
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24136 of 2020 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Muzaffrnagar. The order aforesaid was passed on the objection submitted by the petitioners regarding apportionment of the compensation on acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1956").
The objection submitted by the petitioners was not accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have purchased the land from Khatedar of Khata No.253. It was the land near National Highway and accordingly compensation towards the land purchased by the petitioners should have been given to them and if at all there was a dispute with regard to the sale deed, matter should have been referred to the Civil Court under Section 3-H (4) of the Act, 1956. The authority has committed error by rejecting the objection submitted by the petitioners, thus the order may be set-aside.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
We find that the issues raised by the petitioners has been dealt with by the competent authority having competence to do so under Section 3-H (3) of the Act, 1956.
It is a case of joint khatedari of land of Khasra No.253.
The aforesaid is coming out even from the khatauni.
The petitioners purchased the land from a khatedar.
In view of the above, the right pursuant to the sale deed was not recognized by the competent authority being a land of joint khatedar.
A specific reference of this issue has been given dealing with the argument of the petitioners.
The last paragraph of the order is quoted for ready reference:
????????????? ???????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? 253 ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????, ??? ????, ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? 11.10.1999 ?? ???? ???? ??? ????, ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? 05.03.1999 ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????, ?????? ????, ??????? ? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? 17.04.1980 ?? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? 253 ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????, ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? 253 ??? ????????? ?? ??? ??-???????? ??? ??, ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????, ??? ???? ? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ???? ??????????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? 1424 ?? 1429 ???? ?? ???? ?????? 84 ?? ???? ?????? 253 ??? ????????? 2.0920 ??0 ??? ?????????? ??? ????? ??, ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ????????? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ????
The position of fact and legal issue being clear, we do not find it to be a case appropriate for reference to the Civil Court. It is not that the authority is not competent to decide the objection, rather power for it exists under Section 3-H (3) of the Act, 1956. Till the partition of joint khatedari is made, sale of land or even a part of it by one or two khatedars, out of many is not legal, and if the sale is made it cannot be recognized.
Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the competent authority.
The writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2020 SB