Allahabad High Court
Hira Lal Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 70672 of 2010 Petitioner :- Hira Lal Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Lal Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Petitioners are resident of Village Dehuruchh Hafi, Post Ganiva, Pargana Karvi, Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot.
3. It is alleged that some part of the bhumidhari land of the petitioners in the years 2002, was taken for the purposes of construction of Pakka Road from Bharwari to Rajapur, under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (for short 'PMGSY').
4. It is alleged that the procedure for construction of road on the private land of the petitioners was neither complied, nor, compensation was paid. Aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ-C No. 22241 0f 2009, which came to be disposed of directing the respondent No. 2-Collector, Karvi, Chitrakoot, to decide the representation.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 09 December 2009, passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 26 August 2010, came to be passed by the second respondent. It is noted in the impugned order that in the year 2000-2001, Government had sanctioned construction of link road, which came to be constructed in 2002, under the PMGSY Scheme/Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. It is, further, noted that the road that was constructed was to be used by the villagers as a public rasta. On the demand of the villagers, work was undertaken on the consent and approval of villagers. It is further, noted that no objection or resistance to the project was made by the villagers and the petitioners herein also did not object rather consented for construction of the link road. It is after lapse of six years in 2008, the petitioners demanded compensation. The demand for the compensation was rejected on the ground that the project for construction of the link road was on the demand of villagers and on their consent. Further, under the scheme PMGSY, there is no provision for compensation.
6. In this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled for compensation in view of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, for the portion of land that was taken for the construction of the link road. Further, it is urged that petitioner had not given his consent/approval for the construction of link road.
7. In view thereof, we are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that it is not a case of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or under any other Act for the construction of the link road. The construction of the road within the village/panchayat was undertaken under the Government sponsored schemes on the request of the villagers and on their consent, including that of the Petitioners. This fact is noted in the impugned order.
8. In the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they did not give their consent is not borne from the record; after construction of the link road the demand for compensation was raised after six years for the first time. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners did not agree or concede to the construction of the link road.
9. Hence, petition, being devoid of the merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. All pending applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023 Mukesh Pal