STATE OF U P Vs. BHUSAI
LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-248
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 26,2016

STATE OF U P Appellant
VERSUS
Bhusai Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)We had reserved orders on these two review applications that were filed for review of the judgment dated 05.09.2014. The first application has been filed on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority and the second application has been filed on behalf of the State of U.P. The arguments in both these review applications have been laid by Sri Abhinav Narain Trivedi for the State along with Sri Vijay Kumar Asthana for the Lucknow Development Authority. The review applications have been opposed by Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kshemendra Shukla appearing for the original writ petitioner who is the respondent in these review applications.
(2.)Sri Abhinav Narain Trivedi has urged that the petitioner could not have been extended the benefit of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) inasmuch as, the Division Bench while finally disposing of the writ petition, had overlooked the very basis of the arguments in relation to the deposit of the compensation that was governed by a separate Rule in the State of U.P., namely, the Rules for Payment of Compensation for the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 10.05.1895 as modified by the Finance Department dated 12.08.1896, 21.09.1897, 03.04.1900 and 19.03.1914. The same have been placed before the Court. Rule 6 of the said Rules has been pressed in particular to substantiate the submissions. It is also urged by Sri Abhinav Narain Trivedi that the writ petition has been disposed of only on a short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and as a matter of fact, no full contest has been allowed in the matter. He also submits that a Contempt Application No.1723 of 2015 has also been pressed into service and, therefore, appropriate orders should be passed for reviewing the judgment.
(3.)As indicated in our order dated 21.09.2016 passed on the review application filed by the Lucknow Development Authority we had noticed that the Lucknow Development Authority had filed a Special Leave to Appeal against the original judgment under review before the Apex Court but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition and further, the authority was also permitted to approach the Apex Court to challenge the impugned order, should the review petition be dismissed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.