- (1.) BY means of the present writ petition the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.6.2007 passed by the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi, respondent no. 2, filed as Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition as also a writ, order in the nature of mandamus directing the said respondent to refer the application dated 8th March, 1989, filed as Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition to the District Judge, Bhadohi under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to decide on merit.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: The petitioners' land situate in Plot no. 80, having an area of 3 Biswa and Plot no. 70 having an area of 2 Biswa 6 dhoor, thus the total area 5 Biswa 6 dhoor, was acquired vide notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act dated 3rd April, 1982 for the construction of Bhadohi Bypass Road. The petitioner was given compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sat Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. The petitioners did not go in reference. However, one Sri Lutful Haque whose Plot no. 24 area 8 Biswa 8 dhoor situate at village Rewera Paraspur, which was also acquired by the aforesaid notification dated 3rd April, 1982 for the same purpose of construction of Bhadohi Bypass Road challenged the award made by the respondent no. 2 by way of reference which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference no. 167 of 1987, Lutful Haque vs. Collector Varanasi and was allowed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Varanasi vide judgment and order dated 9th December, 1988. The compensation was enhanced. The petitioners moved an application on 8th March, 1989 under Section 28A(1) of the Act before the respondent no. 2 seeking benefit of the order dated 9th December, 1988 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Reference no. 167 of 1987. It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid application was filed by the petitioners' father who was the original tenure holder and after his death that is being prosecuted by the two petitioners who are his sons and legal representatives.
(3.) THE respondent no. 2 vide order dated 29th May, 1989 rejected the application filed by the petitioners' father. The order dated 29th May, 1989 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court by means of the Writ Petition no. 48046 of 1999, Jokhai Ram and another vs. State of U.P. and another, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 17th February, 2004 and the order dated 29th May, 1989 was quashed. The petitioners filed a copy of the order dated 17th February, 2005 passed by this Court before the respondent no. 2 but when sufficient time elapsed and nothing was done the petitioners approached this Court by filing Contempt Petition no. 4563 of 2008 in which notices were issued. During the pendency of the contempt petition the petitioners were informed that the application has been rejected vide order dated 14th June, 2007. The information of the order was given to the petitioners on 25th February, 2009. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14th June, 2007 by means of the present writ petition. The respondent no. 2 had rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order passed in Land Acquisition Reference no. 167 of 1987 belonged to a different village whereas the petitioners' land is situate in a different village and the petitioners had not given any evidence regarding comparative Circle rate, utility and the topography and also substitution of their names in place of Nanhoo, the deceased. It has further stated that benefit of Section 28A of the Act cannot be taken as a windfall as it is meant for the indigent persons in respect of which the petitioners have not given sufficient proof. Accordingly the application was dismissed.;