Binod Kumar Roy, D.R.Chaudhary, JJ. - (1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 29.11.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Joint Organisation. Mathura -(as contained In Annexure-19) directing the parties not to interfere in possession of each other till the dispute is resolved by a competent court on the ground that under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, he has not been vested with powers to grant injunction apart from the fact it is based on the illegal report of the Lekhpal, who was not even examined to prove his report and against which the petitioner filed an objection, which was not decided.
(2.) Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the order being absolutely without Jurisdiction, the continuance of which will cause an apparent injustice to the petitioner, who has already laid down the pipe line for supply of water to its refinery in 1978-79 after acquisition, payment of compensation and taking of possession on 5.8.1978 of 75 decimals of land out of 3.05 Acres of land bearing Plot No. 553 Village Raoosu ; and that the land bearing Plot No. 553 (Area 3.05 Acres) were divided in three plots during consolidation--Plot No. 349 (Area 2.23 Acres), 350 (Area 7 decimals) which stands recorded as raasta (chak road) and 351 (Area 75 decimals) as evident from C.H. Form 41 (Annexure-2) out of which Plot No. 349 was sold by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 - the sons of the recorded tenant Bhogi Ram - to one Roshan Lal Kundra and taking into account the factum of sale names of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been expunged from the revenue records and thus nothing remained out of 3.05 acres of land about which respondent Nos. 4 to 7 can claim any right, title and interest. The report of the Lekhpal stood vitiated for the apparent reason that he had not taken fixed points for his alleged measurements, besides it was collusively submitted.
(3.) Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 very fairly concedes that true it is that the order is without jurisdiction but having regard to the fact that for 20 decimals of land of Plot No. 351, no compensation was paid, they rightly filed objection and thus on the ground of equity as laid down by the Division Bench of our own High Court in Pooran Singh v. Additional Commissioner. AIR 1957 All 276. no interference is required and this writ petition be dismissed. He further contended that the assertion of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had sold out their lands or that the report of the Lekhpal was neither an incorrect nor have they withdrawn the compensation. The petitioner had illegally taken possession of 23 decimals of land out of Plot No. 349 of the respondents and had laid pipe line which was not even acquired and had left over 12 decimals of land in Plot No. 351 over which they made pacca construction.;