- (1.) WE have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.K. Srivastava appearing for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the contesting respondents 1 to 5.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are that the petitioner is said to have executed a registered Power of Attorney on 18.3.2010 in favour of one Mohd. Ishtiyaq. Pursuant to the aforesaid Power of Attorney being executed, the Attorney is said to have purchased properties on behalf of the petitioner in villages Gadakul, Tappa Baraho, Pargana Naugarh in District Siddharath Nagar. The properties itself are said to have been purchased on different dates between the years 2010 -12. Although, the writ petition recites that copies of the sale deed are being brought on record what is appended to the petition is a copy of the Power of Attorney said to have been executed on 18.3.2010 and extracts of the revenue record in support of the assertion that consequent to the conveyance, the name of the petitioner stood recorded over the properties in question. The petitioner for the first time on 23.11.2012 appears to have made a representation to the Commissioner Basti, the Collector, Siddharath Nagar, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Siddharath Nagar and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Siddharath Nagar. In this representation it is asserted by the petitioner that she discovered that the plots purchased by her had been utilized by the P.W.D. for constructing a Bypass in 1978. In view of the above, the petitioner asserted that she has been deprived of her property in violation of the guarantees enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India and, therefore, prayed that she be compensated for the same.
(3.) THE said representation having not borne any fruit, the petitioner approached this Court by means of W.P. No. 18675 of 2014, in which after hearing the parties, this Court found that the writ petition involved an enquiry into various factual aspects and therefore, it would be appropriate if the claim of the petitioner is first examined by the District Magistrate concerned. Accordingly the writ petition was disposed of on 17.4.2014 with a direction to the District Magistrate to consider the claim of the Petitioner. Upon disposal of the said writ petition on the terms aforesaid, the District Magistrate appears to have drawn proceedings for consideration of the claim laid by the petitioner. After putting the petitioner and the P.W.D. to notice and upon consideration of the material produced before him, the District Magistrate, Siddharath Nagar vide the impugned order dated 9th June, 2014, has been pleased to reject the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.;