Anita vs District Magistrate, G.B. Nagar & Ors.

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondent no.1 and 2.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :

issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 15122009 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition);

issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to refer the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent court;

issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents no.1 and 2 not to disburse the amount of compensation to respondent no.3 in pursuance of the order dated 15122009 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure : 4 to the writ petition);

issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to which the petitioner be entitled under law; and

award costs to the petitioner.

The petitioner is the widowed daughterinlaw of Sri Turmal, respondent no. 3, the recorded tenure holder of the land purchased by him through registered sale deed. The land has been acquired by the State Government for Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautambudh Nagar.

The petitioner made an application that she is widow and has to look after four children. She has a right in the property of her late husband and thus the compensation may be apportioned under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The Additional District Magistrate/(Land Acquisition)/Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition), Yamuna Expressway has rejected the application by his order dated 15122009 giving rise to this writ petition. He found that the property for which compensation is sought to be paid is self acquired property of Sri Turmal son of Chandar and his name is entered in the revenue record. The petitioner Smt. Anita has no right in the property, as of now, as a widowed daughterinlaw. Neither she nor her children have any right to claim any share or apportionment of the compensation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a widowed daughterinlaw, and her four children have a right to maintenance from her fatherinlaw. Sri Turmal had filed objection, to her application stating therein that he is providing maintenance to four children and that the petitioner has no right to claim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as admitted by her fatherinlaw, the petitioner has a right to claim maintenance for herself and her children and thus directions be issued to apportion the compensation.

The agricultural land acquired by the State Government is the self acquired property of Sri Turmal, fatherinlaw of the petitioner. As a widowed daughterinlaw, the petitioner does not have any share in the property under the agricultural law under section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, so long as Sri Turmal, who is recorded tenure holder of the land, is alive.

The impugned order records that the petitioner Smt. Anita has filed a Case No. 400/2009 against her fatherinlaw under section 125 Cr.P.C. Her fatherinlaw assured her but is not paying any amount for her maintenance and the maintenance of her children. The petitioner has a right to press her application for maintenance against her fatherinlaw, who is likely to received Rs.1,75,000/ towards compensation for acquisition of the land. We hope and trust that the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hapur hearing the application for maintenance will pass appropriate orders for maintenance in accordance with the law and if the amount is not paid, recover the same from her fatherinlaw Shri Turmal.

The writ petition is disposed of with these observations.