Allahabad High Court
Ram Kishun And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6567 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ram Kishun And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uday Narain Singh,Veer Bhagat Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Shri V.S. Kushwaha appears for the petitioners.
Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra is present for the respondent no. 5.
The petitioners seek direction to respondents to decide their representation whereby petitioners seek compensation in lieu of the acquisition of land bearing Khata No. 99 situated in village Akbarpur.
Documents on record reveal that the Central Government for Special Rail Project under Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Chandauli issued notification under section 20A of Indian Railways Act, 1989 for acquisition of large tract of land in said District on 1.7.2011 published in the gazette of India dated 12.7.2011. That land bearing Khata No. 99 admeasuring 0.1638 hectare situated in village Akbarpur was also notified. That notice under section 20 A (4) of the Act of 1989 was published on 3.8.2011 and under section 20E on 1.2.2012. After considering the objection award was passed on 11.3.2013. Evident it is therefrom that award included the value of land as well as of the structure determined by the registered valuer and was accordingly shown in Form No. 11. In respect of Gata No. 99, the compensation was determined as under:
QkeZ&11 Xkzke&vdcjiqj ijxuk& /kwl rglhy& ldyMhgk ftyk& pUnkSyh dze la0 [kkrsnkj dk uke Lakjpuk ds eqvkots ds nkosnkj dk uke [kkrk la0 XkkVk la0 Lakjpukvksa dk fdLe ,oa la[;k edku@rkykc@dqvka bR;kfn dk ewY; dk ewY;
dqy ;ksx vfHk;qfDr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 ¼1½ yYyu iq= ljtw ¼2½ pUnznhi iq= ljtw ¼3½ jkekJ; iq= ljtw ¼4½ egktu iq= ljtw ¼5½ jkeHkou iq= ljtw ¼6½ lwnkeh nsoh iRuh jkefd'kqu lqnkeh nsoh iRuh jke fd'ku 157 99 Ekdku ¼,lh 'khV dejk ,oa >ksiM+½ 83100.00 83100.00 7 EkgsUnz firk >EEku 99 edku 303500.00 303500.00 8 >Eeu firk lq[knso 99 Ekdku ¼[kijSy dejk½ 48800.00 48800.00 9 egsUnz firk >Eeu 99 Ekdku ¼[kijSy½ 40800.00 40800.00 10 feJh yky firk firk ';ke yky 99 Ekdku 123400.00 123400.00 11 feJh yky firk firk ';ke yky 99 Ekdku] NIij 44000.00 44000.00 12 feJh yky] feBkbZ yky] [kVkbZ yky] cpu dqekj firk ';ke yky 99 Ekdku 832200.00 832200.00 13 ';ke yky firk lq[knso 103 Ekdku 92100.00 92100.00 The award specifically stated that the compensation shall be disbursed in favour of the persons on the basis of their title which shall be determined as far the stipulation continued under section 20 F (4) of Act of 1989. That section 20 F of 1989 Act stipulated:
"20F Determination of amount payable as compensation. --
(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(2) The competent authority shall make an award under this section within a period of one year from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that the competent authority may, after the expiry of the period of limitation, if he is satisfied that the delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances, and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, he may make the award within an extended period of six months:
Provided further that where an award is made within the extended period, the entitled person shall, in the interest of justice, be paid an additional compensation for the delay in making of the award, every month for the period so extended, at the rate of not less than five per cent. of the value of the award, for each month of such delay.
(3) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition, an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.
(4) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.
(5) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 20D, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.
(6) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or as the case may be sub-section (3) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed.
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(8) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount of compensation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (6), as the case may be, shall take into consideration--
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 20A;
(b) the damage, if any sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.
(9) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the competent authority or the arbitrator, as the case may be, shall in every case award a sum of sixty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
The petitioners for the reasons best known to them have not disclosed the date on which the notification under section 25 F(4) was published. Be that as it may. It appears from the record of the petitioners that in the year 2017 i.e. after 4 years of passing of the award the petitioners filed an application before the Revenue Authorities seeking mutation of their names over the land bearing Arazi No. 99 admeasuring 0.251 hectare Mauza Rampur Akbarpur by substitution as legal heirs of Rajwanti Devi the mother of the petitioners who was said to had purchased part of said land i.e. 0.130 hectare vide sale deed dated 8.1.2007 and that her name was recorded in revenue record vide order dated 9.2.2017 and that she died in the year 2017. That in the year 2021 on 21.1.2021 i.e. almost after 8 years of the passing of the award the petitioners on the basis of the entry in the revenue record which was in the year 2017 sought compensation in lieu of acquisition of entire 0.251 hectare of Arazi No. 99. Evident it is from the Form No. 11 that besides petitioners father Zamman, the petitioner no. 4 Mahendra had respectively claimed compensation in lieu of the house constructed over the land in question. The petitioners however have concealed this fact in the petition. Incumbent it was upon the petitioner to have explained the correct fact situation instead they have frescoed a picture as if the family of Rajwanti has been deprived of the compensation. The petitioners have thus not came up with clean hands and have concealed vital facts for unlawful gain. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must approach the court with clean hands and should not conceal material facts. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works ltd. and others Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another (2005) 1 SCC 122, it is held:
"13. The factual position as highlighted above clearly goes to show that the complainant had not come to Court with clean hands. There was no explanation whatsoever for the inaction between 1995 and 2001. The High Court seems to have been swayed by the fact that the appellants have rejected claim of the complainant on 5.12.2001. It failed to notice that the communication dated 5.12.2001 was in response to the letter of the complainant dated 24.11.2001.
14. ..........
15. The learned Magistrate has issued process in respect of offence under Section 418 IPC. The punishment provided for said offence is imprisonment for three years. The period of limitation in terms of Section 468(2)(c) is 3 years. That being so, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Section 473 of the Code provides for extension of period in certain cases. This power can be exercised only when the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Order of learned Magistrate does not even refer to either Section 468 or Section 473 of the Code. High Court clearly erred in holding that the complaint was not hit by limitation. As noted above, there was not even a reference that the letter dated 5.12.2001 was in response to the letter of complainant dated 24.11.2001. The factual position clearly shows that the complaint was nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and this is a case where the power under Section 482 should have been exercised. The High Court unfortunately did not take note of the guiding principles as laid down in Bhajan Singh's case (supra), thereby rendering the judgment indefensible. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the proceedings initiated by the complaint lodged are quashed. The appeal is allowed."
In view whereof the petitioner deserves to be dismissed with cost. It is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) which be deposited by the petitioner in the High Court Legal Services Authority, Allahabad within a period of 30 days' from today failing which, office is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as to why an action be not taken against him for non payment of costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed before Registrar General of this Court for compliance.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021
Kirti
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)