High Court · 2025

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43394 of 2024 Petitioner :- Delhi Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Srishti Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. The following prayer has been made in the writ petition: "issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse compensation in lieu of the award dated 06.12.2017 by the respondent no.6 to the petitioner company in pursuance to the acquisition of its land bearing Khatauni Khata No. 1/1 Khasra No. 1-174 of Village Belakhurd, Tehsil- Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, admeasuring 5,000 Hectare Village Belakhurd, Tehsil- Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar acquired by the National Highways Authority for construction of Eastern Peripheral Expressway, Gautam Budh Nagar."

3. The case of the petitioner is that under an award dated 06.12.2017 passed by respondent no.6 under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner company is entitled to payment of compensation but the same has not been paid to the petitioner so far as it is alleged that there is boundary dispute between the State of U.P. and Haryana and the demarcation proceeding for demarcation of boundaries in terms of Dixit Award is still in progress.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rival claim in respect of the land for which compensation is being sought by the petitioner. The demarcation exercise to be held for implementation of the Dixit award has nothing to do with the release of compensation in respect of the land acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act. The submission is that the controversy herein is covered by the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ-C No. 18801 of 2023 (Singhraj and 7 others vs. Union of India and 4 others). The relevant part of the said judgment and order is extracted below: "6. The scheme of the Act does not suggest that the stand taken by the respondents is sustainable in law. As noted above, the declaration under Section 3-D specifically mentions the name of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners as well as their share. Under Section 3-H, the amount determined by award passed under Section 3-G has to be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by Rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the Competent Authority before taking possession of land. In compliance of the said direction, the NHAI has deposited the compensation amount with the Competent Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 3-H mandates that as soon as the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. As on date, there is no other person claiming any hostile title or objecting to the claim of the petitioners herein. Under sub-section (4) of Section 3-H, the amount can be deposited before the principal civil court only if there is dispute relating to apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person or to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. Therefore, the very exercise of depositing the amount before the civil court was wholly illegal. In fact, the District Judge, having regard to the aforesaid legal position, has returned the compensation amount to the Competent Authority and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, admits that it has been received by the Competent Authority on 8.8.2022.

7. The demarcation of boundaries in terms of Dikshit Award is a completely different process and has nothing to do with payment of compensation for the acquired land to the tenure holders whose names were recorded in the revenue records and also in the notification issued under Section 3-D and the award passed by the Authorities. If the two States delay the implementation of Dikshit Award, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. In fact, respondent no. 3 rightly agreed for disbursement of compensation to the petitioners after taking undertaking from them and obtaining security bonds, but now without any valid reason, he has retracted from his statement.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in respect of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the State respondents to the petitioners aforesaid, in addition to the sum payable to them under the award. The petitioners shall be paid compensation in respect of their share as mentioned in the notification under Section 3-D and the award within a period of four weeks from today, along with other statutory benefits as are admissible, provided they furnish undertaking and security bonds in favour of the State within two weeks from today. "

7. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed by Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar, it is admitted that the facts of the instant case are identical. Paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit is as follows: "11.That the deponent may inform this Hon'ble Court that almost identical issue has arisen in W.P. No. 18801 of 2023 Singh Raj and 07 others Versus Union and 04 others which was decided on 06.11.2023 by this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court opined in para-7 of it, "that the demarcation of boundaries in terms of Dikshit Award is a completely different process and has nothing to do with payment of compensation for the acquired land to the tenure holders whose names were recorded in the revenue records and also in the notification issued under Section 3-D, and the award passed by the authorities," the copy of which is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-3 to this affidavit."

8. Having regard to the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the instant petition also disposed of in same terms. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Ashish Pd. ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43394 of 2024 Petitioner :- Delhi Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Srishti Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. The following prayer has been made in the writ petition: "issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse compensation in lieu of the award dated 06.12.2017 by the respondent no.6 to the petitioner company in pursuance to the acquisition of its land bearing Khatauni Khata No. 1/1 Khasra No. 1-174 of Village Belakhurd, Tehsil- Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, admeasuring 5,000 Hectare Village Belakhurd, Tehsil- Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar acquired by the National Highways Authority for construction of Eastern Peripheral Expressway, Gautam Budh Nagar."

3. The case of the petitioner is that under an award dated 06.12.2017 passed by respondent no.6 under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner company is entitled to payment of compensation but the same has not been paid to the petitioner so far as it is alleged that there is boundary dispute between the State of U.P. and Haryana and the demarcation proceeding for demarcation of boundaries in terms of Dixit Award is still in progress.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rival claim in respect of the land for which compensation is being sought by the petitioner. The demarcation exercise to be held for implementation of the Dixit award has nothing to do with the release of compensation in respect of the land acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act. The submission is that the controversy herein is covered by the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ-C No. 18801 of 2023 (Singhraj and 7 others vs. Union of India and 4 others). The relevant part of the said judgment and order is extracted below: "6. The scheme of the Act does not suggest that the stand taken by the respondents is sustainable in law. As noted above, the declaration under Section 3-D specifically mentions the name of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners as well as their share. Under Section 3-H, the amount determined by award passed under Section 3-G has to be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by Rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the Competent Authority before taking possession of land. In compliance of the said direction, the NHAI has deposited the compensation amount with the Competent Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 3-H mandates that as soon as the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. As on date, there is no other person claiming any hostile title or objecting to the claim of the petitioners herein. Under sub-section (4) of Section 3-H, the amount can be deposited before the principal civil court only if there is dispute relating to apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person or to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. Therefore, the very exercise of depositing the amount before the civil court was wholly illegal. In fact, the District Judge, having regard to the aforesaid legal position, has returned the compensation amount to the Competent Authority and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, admits that it has been received by the Competent Authority on 8.8.2022.

7. The demarcation of boundaries in terms of Dikshit Award is a completely different process and has nothing to do with payment of compensation for the acquired land to the tenure holders whose names were recorded in the revenue records and also in the notification issued under Section 3-D and the award passed by the Authorities. If the two States delay the implementation of Dikshit Award, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. In fact, respondent no. 3 rightly agreed for disbursement of compensation to the petitioners after taking undertaking from them and obtaining security bonds, but now without any valid reason, he has retracted from his statement.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in respect of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the State respondents to the petitioners aforesaid, in addition to the sum payable to them under the award. The petitioners shall be paid compensation in respect of their share as mentioned in the notification under Section 3-D and the award within a period of four weeks from today, along with other statutory benefits as are admissible, provided they furnish undertaking and security bonds in favour of the State within two weeks from today. "

7. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed by Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar, it is admitted that the facts of the instant case are identical. Paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit is as follows: "11.That the deponent may inform this Hon'ble Court that almost identical issue has arisen in W.P. No. 18801 of 2023 Singh Raj and 07 others Versus Union and 04 others which was decided on 06.11.2023 by this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court opined in para-7 of it, "that the demarcation of boundaries in terms of Dikshit Award is a completely different process and has nothing to do with payment of compensation for the acquired land to the tenure holders whose names were recorded in the revenue records and also in the notification issued under Section 3-D, and the award passed by the authorities," the copy of which is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-3 to this affidavit."

8. Having regard to the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the instant petition also disposed of in same terms. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Ashish Pd. ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)