SATROHAN & 4 OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY , HOUSING & URBAN PLANNING &ORS
LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-142
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 24,2017

SATROHAN And 4 OTHERS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY , HOUSING And URBAN PLANNING AndORS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WORKING FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIV RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. VINOD OIL AND GENERAL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
VELAXAN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)We have heard Sri J.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Lucknow Development Authority.
(2.)The petitioners' land was acquired by a notification dated 11.9.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16.2.2001 and an award was made on 21st October, 2008. The petitioners contended that Pot No.250 measuring 0.212 hectare situate in Village Ahimamau, Tahsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow is still in their possession and further no compensation was paid to the petitioners. It was also contended that even the compensation has not been deposited by the respondents before any court. The petitioners thus contend that in view of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"), the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.
(3.)The State-respondents No.2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit contending that 87% of the land owners have been paid compensation and that about 95% of the tenure holders in Village Ahimamau have also been paid compensation. The Collector in his counter affidavit, however, admitted that insofar as Plot No.250 is concerned, the petitioners were not paid compensation and that in any case the respondents deposited the compensation before the appropriate court on 16.11.2014. The respondents thus contended that the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is not available to the petitioners.
;


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