VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers: i. Issue; a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.5.2014 (Annexure 8) passed by the respondent No. 2. ii. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Respondents to pay the due annuity/lump -sump to the petitioners in accordance to the provision of U.P. Land Acquisition of New Policy dated 2.6.2011 with an interest as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court from the date of entitlement to the date actual payment. iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. Award the cost of petition in favour of petitioner.
(2.) THE challenge raised is to the order dated 23.5.2014 whereby the representation of the petitioners, claiming annuity/lump -sump payment has been rejected. The second prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay annuity/lump -sump payment in accordance with the provision of the U.P. Land Acquisition of New Policy dated 2nd June 2011. It may be noticed that it is only this claim, which has been rejected vide order dated 23.5.2014 holding that the aforesaid policy is not applicable in the case of the petitioner whose land was admittedly purchased prior to the issuance of the G.O. Dated 8th October 2012 by way of private negotiation.
(3.) IT is alleged that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the Project of Arjun Sahayak Pariyojna in accordance with the Land Acquisition Policy dated 2nd June 2011, contained in the G.O. Dated 2nd June 2011 (Annexure 1 to the petition). It is stated that land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. On the strength of the aforesaid Government Orders, the petitioners are claiming annuity/lump -sump payment, which has not been paid till date and alleged that it is contrary to the aforesaid policy. It is urged that the claim of the petitioners has been illegally rejected vide order dated 23.5.2014.;