- (1.) HEARD Sri A. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation for depriving the petitioner of his land is a classic case of highhandedness and arbitrariness on the part of the State authorities. The petitioner has been dispossessed from his land illegally and forcibly without undertaking any proceedings either for acquisition or even requisition and that too, without any compensation. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner (since deceased) was the owner and in possession of plot No. 5. 57 acre situate in village Bilauna, Pargana and Tahsil Bharthana District Etawah. A notice dated 28-1-1991 was issued by Assistant Engineer, Construction Division, Public Works Department (P. W. D.), Etawah intimating that an area of 0. 24 acre of plot No. 91 was required for construction of approach road from National Highway to Muraitha Road. By this notice he was required to file objection, if any, within seven days failing which he shall loose all rights over the land and will have to execute a sale-deed in favour of Public Works Department, Etawah. The said notice is on record of the case as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It has been alleged that father of the petitioner did not agree to the proposal nor did execute any sale-deed. Still the possession of 0. 24 acre of the said plot was forcibly taken by the respondents and was utilised for construction of approach road. Petitioner's father and after his death the petitioner has been running from pillar to post but no payment of compensation has been made. A counter-affidavit sworn by one Om Prakash Verma, Assistant Engineer, Construction Division, P. W. D. Etawah has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been admitted in the counter-affidavit that notice dated 28-1-1991 was issued to the father of the petitioner and since he did not file any objection as such the land was utilised for construction of approach road. It has also been stated that the petitioner's father never claimed any compensation, thus it was not paid.
(3.) IN effect the respondents had admitted in the counter-affidavit that land of the petitioner was taken and utilized without taking recourse to any legal proceeding. However, attempt has been made to justify the illegal and arbitrary action in the name of public interest. The manner in which the State authorities proceeded to deprive the petitioner of his property and have tried to justify their illegal action in the name of public interest shocks the conscience of the Court.;