DR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - C No. - 3429 of 2019

Dr. Satya Prakash Singh
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                  :   Anupam Kulshreshtha
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 21
            HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
            HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms. Shatakshi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh
Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred, inter-alia, for the following
relief:-

     a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.2018,
     communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 14.12.2018,
     passed by the Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand-I, Public
     Works Department, Mathura, the respondent no. 2 (Annexure
     No. 16 to this writ petition);

     b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     MANDAMUS directing the respondents pay compensation of
     the land, solitium along with interest, in accordance with the
     provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
     Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013
     and to determine the compensation of land of plot no. 10 are
     426.31 square meters situated in Village - Mathura Khadar,
     Tehsil & District - Mathura;

     c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     MANDAMUS directing the respondents to determine and pay
     compensation to the petitioner towards the improvement on the
     land in dispute, including boundary wall of plot nos. 10 and 11,
     which has been demolished by the respondents while utilizing
     the plot nos. 10 and 11 for the construction of approach road to
     connect the new bridge on Yamuna river as well as Shiv
     Temple situated in plot no. 10;
                                                         WRIC No. 3429 of 2019
                                2


3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is recorded as a bhumidhar with transferable rights over
plot no. 10, admeasuring 0.1380 hectare, and plot no. 11, admeasuring
0.1620 hectare, situated in Mauza Mathura Khadar, Tehsil and District
Mathura.

(ii) It is stated that the petitioner purchased plot no. 10 by means of a
registered sale deed dated 22.08.1994 executed by the recorded tenure
holder, namely, Mool Chand s/o Puran. The said sale deed is registered in
Book No. 1, Zild No. 32, at pages 75 to 110, Serial No. 750. Plot no. 11
was subsequently purchased by the petitioner from the recorded tenure
holder, namely, Har Chand s/o Ram Ratan, by a registered sale deed dated
02.11.1996, recorded in Book No. 1, Zild No. 326, Serial No. 4466. It
further transpires from the record that the State Government undertook
construction of a new bridge over river Yamuna near old Chungi on State
Highway No. 33 (Bharatpur-Pilibhit State Highway), for which the
aforesaid plots were required. The land in question was subsequently
transferred to respondent no. 2 on 10.09.2013. However, the claim of the
petitioner for compensation was denied on account of pendency of a civil
dispute arising from an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the
original tenure holder in favour of a third party.

4. Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned Senior Advocate, submits that the
civil suit, which was pending at the relevant time, has since been
dismissed by judgment and order dated 01.02.2023, against which an
appeal has been preferred. He further submits that it is an admitted
position that a registered sale deed exists in favour of the petitioner,
which has neither been cancelled nor stayed by any competent court. It is
further contended that although proceedings were initiated by a person
claiming under an agreement to sell, the land in question has already been
utilized by the State and, therefore, stands vested in the State free from all
encumbrances. The petitioner, being the recorded and lawful owner, had
also granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for utilization of the land.
Hence, there exists no legal impediment in releasing compensation in
favour of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, submits that at the time of passing of the impugned order in the
                                                                                           WRIC No. 3429 of 2019
                                                                   3


                                    year 2018, the Authority had rightly withheld payment of compensation
                                    on account of pendency of the civil dispute. He very fairly submits that,
                                    inasmuch as the petitioner, by way of a supplementary affidavit, has
                                    brought on record the judgment and order passed by the competent Civil
                                    Court, there appears to be no impediment for the authority to consider the
                                    petitioner's claim for release of compensation. He further submits that the
                                    said aspect may appropriately be examined by the District Level
                                    Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016.

                                    6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this
                                    Court finds that the impugned order dated 13.12.2018, as communicated
                                    on 14.12.2018, does not suffer from any illegality at the time it was
                                    passed, inasmuch as the same was based on the pendency of the civil suit.
                                    However, it is not disputed that the suit for specific performance being
                                    O.S. No. 291 of 1996 has since been decided by judgment and order dated
                                    01.02.2023. In view of the changed circumstances, this Court does not
                                    find any subsisting impediment to the claim of the petitioner for
                                    compensation, nor any basis to deny his status as the rightful owner and
                                    claimant.

                                    7. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid developments, the impugned
                                    order is set aside. The matter is relegated to the District Level Committee
                                    constituted under Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which shall
                                    examine the claim of the petitioner and submit its report in accordance
                                    with law to the Chairman, i.e., the District Magistrate, who shall pass an
                                    appropriate order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed
                                    expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of
                                    production of a certified copy of this order.

                                    8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
                                    disposed of.



                                                      (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    March 23, 2026
                                    gp




Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad