Allahabad High Court
Jile Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 October, 2012
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Pankaj Naqvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 75807 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jile Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 to make the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per pakka bigha as others have been paid.
(2) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of their compensation pertaiining to at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per pakka bigha.
(3) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(4) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
3. Vide award dated 26.07.1982, passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bulandshahar, an amount of Rs.9000/- per pakka bigha was awarded to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.52,000/-, but the said compensation has not been awarded. He further submits that the compensation was claimed in Section 18 application which remained indisposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to letter dated 18.01.2006 (Annexure 4 to the petition) by which Addl. District Magistrate has called the petitioner to appear in the office regarding his application under Section 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner appeared before the concerned Addl. District Magistrate and submitted the application on 25.03.2007 and 26.11.2009 respectively, which were on pages 48 & 49 of the writ petition.
4. In the petition, neither any details of the Section 18 application has been given nor any proof has been given by the petitioner of filing his Section 18 application. In the petition also, petitioner has not annexed any application submitted Section 18 application before the Addl. District Magistrate. What has been referred to, are the representations submitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer praying for enhancement of the compensation. More so, when the Addl. District Magistrate called the petitioner to give materials pertaining to Section 18 application as claimed by him, instead of giving any reply to the Addl. District Magistrate, the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition.
5. We are of the view that in this writ Court cannot determine and allow the claim for compensation, as prayed. The petitioner having failed to satisfy the Addl. District Magistrate of filing Section 18 application, no case has been made out to entertain the present writ petition.
6. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.10.2012 Chandra