High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19658-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32304 of 2024 Petitioner :- Deepak Maurya And 11 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Tiwari,Manoj Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Pranjal Mehrotra,A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Devesh Chandra,Pranjal Mehrotra,Swetashwa Agarwal,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Gulab Chandra Tiwari for the petitioners, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for
Legal Reasoning
respondent-NHAI and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State respondents. Sri Vaibhav Tripathi has appeared on behalf of respondent-Union of India. 2. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of order dated 23.8.2024 and for a direction to respondent no. 1 to constitute a high-level committee to enquire into the matter. 3. Order dated 23.8.2024, impugned herein, has been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal thereof reveals that it is in fact a demarcation report of the tehsil authorities. The said demarcation was held in pursuance of order dated 23.7.2024 passed in the previous writ petition of the petitioners (Writ Petition No. 17299 of 2024). 4. The admitted facts are that the respondents have acquired an area measuring 0.0424 hectare of Gata No. 620, out of total area of 0.0890 hectare, 0.024 hectare of Gata No. 621, out of total area of 0.101 hectare and 0.0318 hectare of Gata No. 622, out of total area of 0.2270 hectare, under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The case of the petitioners is that they are bhumidhars of Plot Nos. 620, 621 and 622. Their shops are in existence over the same. The petitioners do not dispute that in furtherance of the notifications, an award was made on 21.2.2023. The petitioners have also withdrawn compensation for the acquired land. At the stage of delivery of possession and demolition of structure standing over the acquired land, the petitioners started making objection on the ground that the respondents are also taking possession of unacquired portion over which their pukka constructions are in existence. The petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5641 of 2024 with the said grievance and since the dispute was of a factual nature, therefore, this Court vide order dated 23.2.2024, directed the competent authority to decide their representation. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority took a decision on 30.3.2024 and held that the petitioners have already been paid full compensation for the acquired land and therefore, their claim is unsustainable. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 17299 of 2024. In the said writ petition, the petitioners alleged that the respondents have not carried out any demarcation on the spot and therefore, their claim could not have
Decision
been dismissed. In such circumstances, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 23.7.2024 with the following observations/directions: - "4. The competent authority while passing the impugned order has not disputed that some part of the land of the petitioners was acquired whereas they are still owners of the remaining area. The dispute between the parties is that of demarcation of the acquired area from the un-acquired part of the land. 5. We are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in directing the Collector to get un-acquired part of the land of the petitioners demarcated in their presence to set at rest all controversies. 6. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to respondent no.2 to constitute a team of Revenue Officers for demarcating the un-acquired part of the land of the petitioners. The demarcation proceedings shall be held in presence of the petitioners or their authorized representatives. Until the demarcation proceedings are finalized, the constructions existing over the subject land shall not be demolished.". 5. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Collector constituted a team of revenue officials and they carried out survey of the site. A report was prepared on 23.8.2024 along with site plan and according to which, no construction of the petitioners existing over unaquired part of the land, is being touched. The petitioners being aggrieved by the demarcation report, as noted above, have filed the instant petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the survey report is incorrect as the respondents have changed the alignment of the road while taking measurement. He has also tried to raise various other factual issues. 7. Per contra, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submits that the acquired and unacquired part of the land have been duly demarcated and the report of the revenue officials submitted in compliance of the previous order of this Court, clearly indicates that no part of constructions existing over unacquired land is under threat of demolition. He further submits that the petitioners have already been paid compensation for the acquired part of the land and therefore the case set up is unsustainable. 8. We have gone through the survey report and the map prepared by the revenue team. The map clearly indicates the acquired and unaquired part of Gata Nos. 620, 621 and 622. The widening of the road was undertaken as per the plan/project of NHAI. The petitioners admit that they have been paid full compensation for the acquired part of their holding. There is no evidence on record to indicate that any construction existing over unacquired part of the land is under threat of demolition. Moreover, the issues sought to be raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are factual in nature and are highly disputed and we are of the considered opinion that writ jurisdiction is not proper remedy to determine such issues. In such circumstances, we find no good ground to quash the survey report. We leave it open to the petitioners to avail such other remedy as may be advised. 9. The petition fails and is therefore dismissed, but with aforesaid liberty to the petitioners. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE JAIDEEP BANERJEE JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)