Others v. Competent Auth. Under National Highway Act

Standing Counsel for the respondent State.

2. Shri Balbir Singh, Advocate has filed Memo of Appearance on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record.

3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to make the payment of compensation of the lands i.e. 0.010 Hectare of Gata No.621, 0.012 Hectare of Gata No.622, 0.133 Hectare of Gata No.623, 0.101 Hectare of Gata No.630 and 0.441 Hectare of Gata No.631 total 0.4410 Hectare situate in Village Baani, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow to the petitioners as per the Award dated 28.05.2021 published by the opposite party no.1 as contained in Annexure no.3 to this writ petition along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from due date till the date actual payment is made to the petitioners within such time bound period as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court." 2 WRIC No. 8502 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were the recorded tenure holders of Gata Nos.621, 622, 623, 630 and 631 situated in Village Baani, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow. The opposite party no.5 namely C.R.N. Developers and Constructions Private Limited had executed an agreement to purchase the aforesaid land from the petitioners the year 2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.82,75,000/- only. The agreement to sell was executed on

19.5.2015. The time limit for getting the sale deed executed was 11 months. The possession of the land was not transferred by the petitioners as the same was to be delivered at the time of execution of sale deed. The opposite party no.5 failed to pay the remaining sale consideration and could not get the sale deed executed within time as mentioned in the agreement to sell. The agreement to sell stands terminated on 19.4.2016. The limitation for filing the suit for specific performance under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act is three years from the date fixed for performance and if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff had noticed that the performance is refused.

5. In this case, no suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent no.5 within a limitation. In the meanwhile, the Government of India had issued a Notification under Section 3 -A of the National Highway Act, on 15.5.2020 proposing to acquire certain portion of the aforesaid plots for Kanpur-Lucknow Expressway. A notification under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act dated 31.12.2020 was issued and published thereafter on 13.1.2021. Award was published on 28.5.2021 3 WRIC No. 8502 of 2025 awarding compensation for the acquired land for Village Baani including the land of the petitioners. At the time of acquisition, the petitioners' names were duly recorded in the revenue record as owners of the land. The petitioners have moved an application on

24.8.2021 for payment of compensation as awarded by respondent no.1. Now the respondent no.5 with mala fide intention moved an application before the respondent no.1 to stop the payment of compensation on the ground that he had an agreement to sell dated 19.5.2015 and has filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge, Hawali (J.D.)., Lucknow registered as Regular Suit No.2661 of 2022 wherein a prayer has been made for permanent injunction to the Government of U.P. not to disburse the compensation to the defendant nos.1 to 4 (petitioners herein).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Writ -C No.30608 of 2018 : Sursati Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 5.9.2022 wherein this Court has considered the question whether a subsequent purchaser of land acquired under the National Highways Act after publication of the Declaration under Section 3-D is entitled to receive compensation on the strength of vendor's title.

7. In the case of the petitioners, no title has been transferred as the agreement to sell lapsed and the respondent no.5 had moved a frivolous suit only to prevent the petitioners from getting compensation as awarded to them by the respondent no.1.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court written instructions from A.D.M. (Land Acquisition), Lucknow, 4 WRIC No. 8502 of 2025 which are taken on record, wherein the only reason for non- disbursal of compensation has been given as the objections filed by respondent no.5 on 17.2.2021 in the office of A.D.M. (Land Acquisition), Lucknow. Alongwith said objections, copy of the agreement to sell has also been annexed. A copy of the regular suit for permanent injunction was subsequently provided to say that the dispute is still pending before the competent court.

9. We are of the considered opinion that till date, agreement to sell has not resulted in the actual sale of the plot in question. No suit for specific performance has been filed by the respondent no.5. Such a suit that has been numbered as Civil Suit No.2661 of 2022 is not maintainable, for the reliefs claimed therein without actual sale deed having not been executed by the petitioners.

10. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondent no.1 to pay compensation to the petitioners as per Award dated 28.5.2021, if there is no other legal impediment. September 2, 2025 Shukla (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Standing Counsel for the respondent State.

2. Shri Balbir Singh, Advocate has filed Memo of Appearance on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record.

3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to make the payment of compensation of the lands i.e. 0.010 Hectare of Gata No.621, 0.012 Hectare of Gata No.622, 0.133 Hectare of Gata No.623, 0.101 Hectare of Gata No.630 and 0.441 Hectare of Gata No.631 total 0.4410 Hectare situate in Village Baani, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow to the petitioners as per the Award dated 28.05.2021 published by the opposite party no.1 as contained in Annexure no.3 to this writ petition along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from due date till the date actual payment is made to the petitioners within such time bound period as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court." 2 WRIC No. 8502 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were the recorded tenure holders of Gata Nos.621, 622, 623, 630 and 631 situated in Village Baani, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow. The opposite party no.5 namely C.R.N. Developers and Constructions Private Limited had executed an agreement to purchase the aforesaid land from the petitioners the year 2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.82,75,000/- only. The agreement to sell was executed on

19.5.2015. The time limit for getting the sale deed executed was 11 months. The possession of the land was not transferred by the petitioners as the same was to be delivered at the time of execution of sale deed. The opposite party no.5 failed to pay the remaining sale consideration and could not get the sale deed executed within time as mentioned in the agreement to sell. The agreement to sell stands terminated on 19.4.2016. The limitation for filing the suit for specific performance under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act is three years from the date fixed for performance and if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff had noticed that the performance is refused.

5. In this case, no suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent no.5 within a limitation. In the meanwhile, the Government of India had issued a Notification under Section 3 -A of the National Highway Act, on 15.5.2020 proposing to acquire certain portion of the aforesaid plots for Kanpur-Lucknow Expressway. A notification under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act dated 31.12.2020 was issued and published thereafter on 13.1.2021. Award was published on 28.5.2021 3 WRIC No. 8502 of 2025 awarding compensation for the acquired land for Village Baani including the land of the petitioners. At the time of acquisition, the petitioners' names were duly recorded in the revenue record as owners of the land. The petitioners have moved an application on

24.8.2021 for payment of compensation as awarded by respondent no.1. Now the respondent no.5 with mala fide intention moved an application before the respondent no.1 to stop the payment of compensation on the ground that he had an agreement to sell dated 19.5.2015 and has filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge, Hawali (J.D.)., Lucknow registered as Regular Suit No.2661 of 2022 wherein a prayer has been made for permanent injunction to the Government of U.P. not to disburse the compensation to the defendant nos.1 to 4 (petitioners herein).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Writ -C No.30608 of 2018 : Sursati Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 5.9.2022 wherein this Court has considered the question whether a subsequent purchaser of land acquired under the National Highways Act after publication of the Declaration under Section 3-D is entitled to receive compensation on the strength of vendor's title.

7. In the case of the petitioners, no title has been transferred as the agreement to sell lapsed and the respondent no.5 had moved a frivolous suit only to prevent the petitioners from getting compensation as awarded to them by the respondent no.1.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court written instructions from A.D.M. (Land Acquisition), Lucknow, 4 WRIC No. 8502 of 2025 which are taken on record, wherein the only reason for non- disbursal of compensation has been given as the objections filed by respondent no.5 on 17.2.2021 in the office of A.D.M. (Land Acquisition), Lucknow. Alongwith said objections, copy of the agreement to sell has also been annexed. A copy of the regular suit for permanent injunction was subsequently provided to say that the dispute is still pending before the competent court.

9. We are of the considered opinion that till date, agreement to sell has not resulted in the actual sale of the plot in question. No suit for specific performance has been filed by the respondent no.5. Such a suit that has been numbered as Civil Suit No.2661 of 2022 is not maintainable, for the reliefs claimed therein without actual sale deed having not been executed by the petitioners.

10. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondent no.1 to pay compensation to the petitioners as per Award dated 28.5.2021, if there is no other legal impediment. September 2, 2025 Shukla (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench