- (1.) This writ petition has been filed raising a grievance that though certain portion of grove Plot No.736 belonging the petitioner situate in Village-Fazilpur, Pargana-Barausa, Tehsil-Jaisinghpur, District-Sultanpur was taken over and utilized for construction of Minor Canal known as Misrauli Canal of Sharda Sahayak Canal, Sultanpur way back in the year 1982, however, for using the said land belonging to the petitioner no compensation in lieu thereof has been paid to the petitioner on one pretext or the other by the respondents.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(3.) It is a case where the land of the petitioner was occupied and utilized by the State authorities without either acquiring it under law of compulsory acquisition and without paying even compensation. The petitioner lodged several protests with the authorities against the wrongful use and occupation of land belonging to the petitioner. However, when no heed was paid to his grievance, he invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition No.269 (M/B) of 2005 (Dwarika Prasad vs. State of U.P. & others), wherein an order was passed on 17.01.2005 requiring the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents to inform the court as to why payment in lieu of utilization of land belonging to the petitioner had not been made. The State authorities in the said writ petition filed counter affidavit, which has been annexed as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition, wherein it was stated by the State-respondents that the District Magistrate, Sultanpur was ready for paying compensation at the standard rates and further that there was some dispute pending in a court of law in respect of ownership of Gata No.736, and accordingly, it was further stated by the State-respondents in the said counter affidavit that till the final decision of ownership is made, the payment of compensation could not be made. The petitioner had filed a rejoinder affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition, wherein it was stated that some dispute regarding ownership was tried by the Consolidation Officer who originally decided the matter in favour of the petitioner and ordered that his name be recorded as Bhumidhar and thereafter proceedings under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules were initiated for compliance of order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the same were also decided in favour of the petitioner vide order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.07.1998. It was also informed by filing the Rejoinder Affidavit that against order dated 25.07.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings under Rule 109 of Consolidation of Holdings Rules, an appeal was preferred which too was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur on 21.01.2006.;