Allahabad High Court
Paras Nath Mishra And 3 Others vs State Of U P And 6 Others on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 114 of 2020 Petitioner :- Paras Nath Mishra And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sajivan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Petitioner no.4 appears in person, he states that being authorized by the three petitioners he has disengaged his counsel and seeks leave to address the matter.
Prayer allowed.
Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to an order dated 10.07.2019 passed by respondent no.6 Executive Engineer, Sharda Sahayak Khand-39, Prayagraj whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation in lieu of alleged acquisition of the land of the petitioners has been rejected on the findings that the land was voluntarily given by the then land holders including the petitioners in the year 1988-1989 for construction of canal under Sharda Sahayak Pariyojna to facilitate irrigation of agricultural land of the petitioners and like. The order, which is self speaking, states:
"कार्रयालय अधिशासी अभिन्ता शारदा सहायक खण्ड-39 प्रयागराज प्रत्रांकः- 1306 / शा० सहा०ख०-39/ भू- प्रतिकर/ दिनांक 10 जुलाई 2019 विषयः- मा० गारोपुर के निर्माण में ग्राम चमरहा, परगना बरसठी, जनपद जौनपुर में अधिग्रहीत भूमि संख्या 451 के प्रतिकर के सम्बन्ध में।
श्री पारसनाथ मिश्र ग्राम चमरहा, पो० निगोह, चहसील मड़ियाहूँ, जनपद जौनपुर।
उपरोक्त विषयक पत्र के क्रम में अबगत कराना है कि शारदाउ सहायक परियोजना के अन्तर्गत मा० गारोपुर का निर्माण वर्ष 1998-89 में शारदा सहायक खण्ड-30 द्वारा किया गया था जो कि वर्ष 1999-2000 में शारदा सहायक खण्ड-39 प्रयागराज में विलीन हुआ। चूंकि एस समय सिंचाई के साधन नगण्य होने के कारण जमीन उपजाऊ नही होती थी एवं सिंचाई हेतु वर्षा पर निर्भर रहती थी। कृषकों द्वारा अपनी जमीन स्वेच्छा से नहर निर्माण हेतु दी गयी थी और नहर निर्माण के समय कोई प्रतिरोध नही किया गया था। वर्तमान में सिंचाई सुविधा एवं भूमि की दर में वृद्धि होने के कारण कृषकों द्वारा भू-प्रतिकर की माँग की जा रही है। जबकि मा० सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में दाखिल रिट याचिका संख्या 2913-2914/2011 श्री सैयद मकबूल अली बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार व अन्य एवं मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में दाखिल रिट याचिका संख्या 9539/2013, 9506/2016 अक्षैवर सिंह व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व 9541/2013 एवं 3509/2016 कुद्दुस अहमद बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य में पारित आदेश के अनुसार भूम अधिग्रहण से सम्बन्धित ऐसे प्रकरण जिनमें दशकों बाद मुआवजे की माँग की जा रही है एवं नहर निर्माण से वर्षों तक मुआवजे को प्राप्त करने हेतु कोई पत्राचार नही किया गया है। ऐसे प्रकरणों में मुआवजा दिया जाना सम्भव नही है।
ह.अपठनीय 10.7.19 अधिशासी अभियन्ता शारदा सहायक खण्ड-39 प्रयागराज"
Elaborate submissions are made by the petitioners by extensively reading paragraphs 91, 135, 185, 189, 196, 203, 223, 237, 256, 263, 287, 293 and 337 of the decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and ors. SLP (C) Nos. 9036-9038/2016 and of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 more particularly Sections 32, 33 and 34 thereof to bring home the submissions that the petitioners who are farmers cannot be deprived of the compensation for their land which is being utilized for public purpose.
The pleadings and the documents on record reveals that to facilitate irrigation to the agriculturists who were mainly dependent on the rains, construction of Garopur Minor Canal under Sharda Sahayak Project was constructed in the year 1988-1989 by the Sharda Sahayak Khand-30, Allahabad which later on was amalgamated into Sharda Sahayak Khand-39, Allahabad (now Prayagraj) in the year 1999-2000. The canal passes through the petitioner's village wherefor area admeasuring 0.16 acre of the Gata No. 451 belonging to petitioners was utilized. It is not uncommon that in respect of the project such as minor irrigation projects for construction of canal to facilitate irrigation to the farmers, the farmers voluntarily come forward and contribute by giving their land which are the fraction of their holding for such construction for their own benefit which they reap from the availability near their fields through canal.
In the instant case also the similar has happened. Though it is contended by the petitioners that they protested against construction of canal; however, except one representation at page 48B of the petition which is of 28.10.1991, the authenticity whereof could not be established, and a representation dated 15.02.1996 (at page 19 of the rejoinder) which is not shown to have ever been served on the Authority concerned, as it does not bear any acknowledgment of any competent authority. Even a reliance placed on the document at page 44 of the petition which is of 29.12.2009 said to have been written by a ministerial employee, will not in our considered opinion establish that there was any protest, which substantiate the stand of the respondent that the villagers and farmers volunteered and of their own volition contributed fraction of their holdings for the construction of minor canal.
In our considered opinion, the petitioners cannot after long years having benefited from the construction of canal agitate against the use of their land and claim compensation.
In somewhat similar fact situation in Syed Maqbool Ali vs State Of U.P. & Anr (2011) 45 CR 238, it is held by the Supreme Court:
"7. High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community - as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the land holders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed."
In view whereof and for the reasons above, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
No costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021
Madhurima
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)