- (1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for all respondents/State.
(2.) From the order dated 13.2.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 30691 (MB) of 2017, Ravindra Kumar Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. and others , it is not in dispute that the police department/respondent No.1 have illegally encroached a portion of land of the petitioners measuring 36 x 80 meters and when the petitioners filed a writ petition, a direction has been issued either to pay compensation or purchase it through negotiations. Relevant portion of the order dated 13.2.2018 reads as under:- "The impasse can be resolved by directing the S.D.M. concerned to undertake a fresh exercise for demarcation in the presence of the affected parties as per law and thereafter if it is found that any portion of the Police Station is on the land of the petitioners which has not been acquired and no compensation has been paid to them in respect thereof and there is no other legal impediment in this regard, then appropriate action shall be taken to compensate the petitioner for such land as per law or if it is permissible, the said land may be settled with the State on the basis of negotiations by purchasing it from the petitioners in view of the Government Order dated 19th of March 2015, as the case may be, but this exercise should be completed within the next 6 months. With these observations the writ petition is disposed off."
(3.) In spite of specific direction has been made by this Court, neither compensation was paid nor the land was purchased. As the order has not been complied with, the petitioners filed a Contempt No.863 of 2019, Ravindra Kumar Pandey and others v. Arvind Kumar, Principal Secretary, Home and others . In the said petition, when a direction was issued to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., then only a compliance affidavit has been filed by Sri Awanish Kumar Awasthi and on the basis of the para - 6 of the affidavit of compliance, the possession of the encroached area has been handed over to the petitioners. Relevant part of the order dated 18.9.2019 passed in Contempt No. 863 of 2019 reads as under:- "In pursuance to the notice issued in this contempt petition, a compliance affidavit of Awanish Kumar Awasthi, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. has been filed. It has been said in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid affidavit of compliance that in compliance of the judgement and order dated 13.2.2018 passed by this Court, the State Government has written a letter dated 14.6.2019 directing that the land in dispute near Police Station Ataria should be demarcated and the land belonging to the petitioner to be returned to him as no pakka construction has been raised on the land. It has been further said that the land of the petitioner has been demarcated after making spot inspection by the area Lekhpal on 3.8.2019. Demarcation proceedings took place in presence of the petitioner. After demarcating the land, the possession of the land in dispute has been handed over to the petitioner. The spot inspection memo and the demarcation report have been annexed in the affidavit of compliance. Since, the competent authority is of the opinion that the land is not required by the State Government/police, this Court cannot force the acquisition of the petitioner's land. From the affidavit of compliance, it is evident that the land of the petitioner has been demarcated and the possession thereof has been handed over to the petitioner. Sri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession has been handed over only on paper. The petitioner will not be able to raise the construction, even the boundary wall over the land would not be allowed. He further submits that the police has been using the land for the last 26 years, but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. This Court is not the competent forum for deciding the compensation particularly when the allegation is that for the last 26 years no compensation has been paid. The petitioner is at liberty to move the competent Court for his claim regarding the compensation, if any. However, the police authorities are directed not to create any hindrance in raising boundary wall or any construction on the land of the petitioner by him, which is permitted under the law. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this contempt petition stands disposed of finally. Contempt notice stands discharged." ;