Sheela Devi And Others vs Prescribed Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer, And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition for the following reliefs :

"A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the land bearing khasra no. 244/3, Mauja Kanakpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagarto total area is 6100 sq. ft. this land has been detailed in N.H.74.

B. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to destroy the property in question which has been illegally and forcefully to take the possession in the month of February, 2018.

C. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct a high level enquiry be initiated and culprits be punished for the fraud committed by concerned authorities.

D. To pass such an order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

E. To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

The brief facts as involved in the instant Writ Petition are that as per the case of the petitioners pleaded, they have contended that they are the purchaser of a piece of land, measuring 283. 46 sq. meters, lying in khasra 244/3 of Village Mauja Kanakpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide two registered sale deeds dated 9th December, 2011, registered before the Registrar Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. As far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they claimed their ownership over an area of 283.46 sq. meters of khasra No. 244 /3, Mauz Kanakpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The boundaries of the said property, thus purchased by the petitioners have been detailed in the Writ Petition in its para 2.

Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 also claimed to have purchased the land, having an area of 283.46 sq. meters, lying in khasra No. 244/3, at Mauza Kanakpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The boundaries of the said portion of the property, thus purchased, was detailed by the petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition.

The case of the petitioners is that after the purchase of the aforesaid property, by virtue of the order passed on 22nd June, 2009 as rendered in Revenue Case No. 22 of 274 (2008-09), the change of user of the said property under Section 143 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 has been recorded in the revenue records by an order dated 3rd September, 2012. There is no reason as to why the conversion which was granted on 22.06.2009, was recorded in the revenue records only on 03.09.2012, at a belated stage.

Precisely, the dispute which is being agitated by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is on the premise that the respondents have entered into the possession of the property of the petitioners without there being any recourse adopted by the respondents for acquiring the land under Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and, thus, the action of the respondents happens to be in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The Counter affidavit has been filed and in the counter affidavit as filed by the respondents, they have submitted that the controversy pertaining to the conversion of the land under Section 143 of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act and its belated recording in the revenue records is a subject matter which is pending consideration before the SIT, which was constituted to investigate the scam and the decision on the same is yet to be arrived at.

Considering the averments made in para 9 of the Writ Petition and the response to it, as given in the counter affidavit by the respondents, this Court vide its order dated 12th April, 2019, had directed the S.D.M., Kashipur to appear in person before this Court. In compliance thereto, Officer concerned, namely, Mr. Naresh Durga Pal is present in person and as per the instructions, which has been imparted by him to Standing Counsel, one aspect which is quite apparent and as argued by the learned Standing Counsel is that the land of the petitioners, which was subject matter of the sale deed as claimed by him, in fact, has been acquired under Section 3 (A) of the Act, has been acquired by the National Highways Authority for widening of the NH 74. The only controversy which is now left to be decided is for the purposes of determining the adequacy of compensation payable to the petitioners. In this regard for the establishment of the fact as to whether the conversion granted under Section 143 of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act, way back in 2009, happens to be in accordance with the provisions contained under the Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950. In relation thereto, with regard to the process of conversion adopted by the Revenue Authority is a subject matter of investigation by the SIT because there are allegations that massive conversion have been made by antedating the order passed under Section 143 of the UP Z.A. & L.R. Act so as to entitled the tenure holders a compensation based on the commercial value of the property, after the grant of conversion.

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, where the SIT is already ceased with the matter and investigation pending consideration, it would not be safe at this stage to pass any order directing the respondents to pay the compensation or to grant of relief as prayed for in the writ petition for payment of compensation based on the conversion granted under Section 143 on 22.06.2009. Because admittedly, as far as khasra No. 244/3 is concerned, based upon a statement which has been made by the Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received from the Officer, who is present in person, it would be deemed that it has been acquired for widening of the NH-74 and, hence, the consequential relied claimed as relief No. 2 that there was a forceful interference in the possession of the property of the petitioners in February, 2018, is also not tenable because once the acquisition has proceeded in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 Act, the action of acquisition cannot be said to be unjustified, hence, it would not be said to be violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as pleaded by the petitioner.

As far as relief No. 3 is concerned, wherein, the petitioners have prayed for a mandamus by way of a direction that high level inquiry may be directed to be conducted even since that is already pending consideration and the authorities are yet to arrive at a conclusion laying down liability pertaining to the wrongful conversion of the land under Section 143 of the UP Z.A. & L.R. Act, no further such direction to conduct a high level enquiry is required to be passed.

Owing to the reasons, which has been assigned above, at this stage, the relief as claimed for by the petitioners in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court and, if at all, the petitioners want redressal of their grievance with regard to the adequacy of the compensation, which they would be entitled to receive as a consequence of the acquisition made by the National Highways Authority, either of agricultural land or the land after its conversion under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, they have got a remedy available to them under Sub-clause (5) of Section 3G of the National Highway Act, 1956 to approach the Arbitrator.

Thus, since the petitioners have got a forum available to them for approaching before the Arbitrator for the determination of adequacy of the compensation and considering the relief clause and the effect of conversion under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which the petitioners have prayed for in the Writ Petition, at this stage while reserving the rights of the petitioners under Section 3G (5) of the Act, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

However, there would be no order as to costs.