Rajendra Kumar Singhal vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate Assisted by Sri Sudesh Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and 2.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for certiorari quashing the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by Respondent No. 1 and order dated 16.1.2004 passed by Respondent No. 3, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut and mandamus directing the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from plot No. 1043 situated in viallage-Rithani Tehsil and District Meerut.

The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that with regard to land in question, the proceedings were initiated in the year 1987 under the land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 21414 of 1987 challenging the proceedings which was disposed of on 23rd July, 2003 in terms of the Judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 18896 pf 1986 which gave liberty to the petitioner to represent the matter before the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. The petitioner submits that the representation was rejected by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut on 16.1.2004. Against which the petitioner further made representation to the State Government which has been rejected on 18.11.2008. The petitioner''s case in this writ petition is that the petitioner after rejection of the representation by the State Government again made representation u/s 48 of the Act stating for reconsideration of the matter. The said application for reconsideration was taken note of by State Government and by letter dated 198.2010 report from the Vice Chairman of Meerut Development Authority, Meerut has been called for which is annexure 11 to the writ petition. The petitioner''s case is that the report has not yet been submitted by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut and the matter is pending for consideration before the State Government.

From the facts brought on record it is clear that after decision of State Government dated 18.11.2008 rejecting the representation of petitoner for exemption of land, the petitioner again made an application on 18.8.2010 to the State Government for reconsider on which report has been called vide letter dated19.8.2010. The State Government having called for report from Respondent No. 3, it is appropriate that a decision be taken by the state on application of the petitioner dated 18.8.2010. We however, make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merit of the case and it is for the State Government to take a decision in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.