SMT. LAJJAWATI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN AND OTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-136
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 04,2016

Smt. Lajjawati And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban And Other Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vijay Laxmi, JJ. - (1.)Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.)Petitioners have come up praying for declaring the proceedings of the land acquisition to have lapsed in relation to plot no. 1020, area 01 bigha, 11 biswas and 10 biswansi, situate in village Quila Mohammadi Nagar, Pargana, tehsil and district Lucknow in terms of sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(3.)The respondent State was granted time on 29th Oct., 2014 for filing a counter affidavit. The local body for whom the land in question was acquired, was also given notices. The Lucknow Development Authority has filed a short counter affidavit dated 4.12.2014. Paras 7 and 8 of the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:-
"7. That award was made on 7.3.1987. The interpretation sought to be given by the petitioners to the Sec. 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is misconceived, inasmuch as the intention of Legislature was that for declaring the land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed for two contingencies, namely physical possession of the land not being with the authority and compensation having not been paid must be present simultaneously. The use of expression 'or' in Sec. 24(2) if permitted to operate in the manner in which petitioners have tried to interpret, the same would create incurable complexities in as much as in cases where compensation has not been paid but the physical possession has been taken and planning over the said land has been done and is settled in favor of lawful allotees declaring the proceedings to have lapsed would create a situation allottees of the Authority would be deprived of their land. Thus, the interpretation as has been given to the petitioner to Sec. 24(2) is absolutely misconceived.

8. That upon having been requested, the ADM(LA) Lucknow has informed that since the petitioners have not received compensation the same has been deposited in court A true copy of the letter dated 20.11.2014 is being annexed here with as Annexure No CA- 1 to this affidavit.

That in view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition proves to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed."

;


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