Lali @ Vimlesh & Another vs State of U.P. & Others

Virendra Singh, J.

The petitioner has not impleaded subsequent purchaser of the land in dispute for which the award has been prepared by the Addl. District Magistrate, Land Acquisition, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. Let the purchaser be impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition. The impleadment application will be filed within a week.

The land in dispute was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar. The petitioner claims 2/3rd share in the plot in dispute on the ground that on the death of their mother in 1974 three out of five daughters were unmarried and were entitled to inherit under UPZA & LR Act, 1950. The name of only one of the daughter namely Rohtesh Kumari was entered in the revenue records. The petitioners claim to be other two daughters, who were unmarried at the time of death of their mother. They did not file any objection in the consolidation proceedings, which became final in the year 1990. Rohtesh Kumari executed sale deed of the entire land. A suit under Section 229B of the UPZA & LR Act was filed by the petitioner. It was dismissed on 26.12.2008 on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holding Act, 1963? as the petitioner did not file any objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming title (their shares) over the land in dispute. It is stated that an appeal No.7 of 2008 against the judgment dated 26.12.2008 is pending before the Addl. Commissioner in which order of status quo has been passed. The interim order is continuing. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a Civil Suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by respondent No.4 was? dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.8.2009. The suit has been restored on 24.9.2009, and is still pending.

Shri Indrasen Singh Tomar submits that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 24.7.2008 in Writ Petition No.36331 of 2008, Lali Vs. State of U.P. the Addl. District Magistrate, Land Acquisition has rejected the petitioner''s objections on 4.12.2009 on the ground that claim are barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holding Act and that suit for cancellation of sale deed has been dismissed and thus there is no dispute pending to deny the release of compensation to the subsequent purchasers.

It is stated by Shri Tomar that the appeal against the judgment in suit under Section 229B of the UPZA & LR Act is still pending and that the Civil Suit has also been restored. He submits that there is bonafide dispute and thus the compensation of 2/3rd share cannot be released to the subsequent purchasers.

As an interim measure, we provide that subsequent purchasers/claimants will be entitled to release of only 1/3rd compensation. For 2/3rd compensation the amount will be paid to him only after he submits indemnity bond that in case suit for cancellatin of sale deed and suit under Section 229B succeeds, he will return the compensation to the petitioners.

The respondents are granted four weeks'' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 02.02.2010.