Srineti Prasad Pandey vs National Highway Authority of India

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Sanjay Harkauli, JJ.—Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sultanpur/Prescribed Authority as respondent no. 16 during the course of the day.

Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners who has filed an amendment application today brining on record the order dated 19th of October, 2016 whereby the representation of the petitioners and that of the respondent nos. 6 to 12 has been rejected.

It is urged that the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sultanpur, while proceeding to dispose of the matter, has hurriedly arrived at a conclusion in order to save himself from the contempt proceedings that had been instituted and, therefore, there does not appear to be a rational decision having been taken on the facts as on record.

The dispute relates to the claim of compensation in respect of acquisition of land for the widening of National Highway No. 56 by the respondent-National Highway Authority of India. The petitioners contend that they are tenure-holders of Plot no. 194-ka and that their land has been occupied without making any payment of compensation or adopting any procedure in respect thereof.

The respondent nos. 6 to 12 are stated to be the owners and tenure-holders of Plot no. 194-kha who had earlier come up before this Court and had filed a Writ Petition no. 17297 of 2016 (L/A) that was disposed of on 28.07.2016 by the following order:

"The petitioners claim themselves to be Bhumidhars of plot No.194 Kha. It is their contention that the said land has been made subject matter of occupation for construction of National Highway No.56. It is also urged that the proceedings have been initiated for survey and also for award of compensation and land recorded as plot No.194-Ga, has been subjected to the said proceedings and compensation has also been prepared for being released to the owners of the said plot.

The petitioners are aggrieved on account of the survey report being defective which instead of including the land of the petitioners, is stated to have been substituted by the plot No.194-Ka, that is of the respondent No.6 to 9.

According to the petitioners, such exclusion of the petitioners'' land on the basis of a wrong survey and inclusion of the land of respondent No.6 to 9 clearly prejudices the cause of the petitioners inasmuch as, their land has been taken for expansion of the National Highway No.56 whereas, the land of the respondent No.6 to 9 is nowhere affected by the same.

The petitioners have also approached the respondent No.4 and have filed an application raising their objections under the National Highways Act.

The respondent No.4 being the competent authority to deal with such an objection is, therefore, directed to examine the revenue records as also the survey report and the notification relating to the said acquisition and then proceed to pass an appropriate order in relation to the petitioners within three weeks after putting to notice to the other persons who may be aggrieved in this regard.

The writ petition is disposed of with the said observations."

The respondent nos. 13 to 15 are stated to be recorded tenure-holder of Plot no. 194-ga and they had also filed a Writ Petition no. 18083 of 2016 (L/A) that was disposed of on 04.08.2016 by the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Shukla for the Union of India.

The petitioners contend that in spite of the verification of the payment vouchers for award of compensation to the petitioners for acquisition of their land, nothing is being processed any further by the paying authority. From the representation addressed to the District Magistrate which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it appears that there was some dispute with regard to the number of the plots and the recipients of the compensation namely, plot No.194-Ka and 194-Ga. It is alleged in the representation that the said dispute has been resolved where after the compensation vouchers have been prepared.

Let this be examined by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) who has sent the letter dated 14.06.2016 calling upon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tahsildar to make available the concerned Lekhpal of the village for verification to proceed with the matter.

We accordingly direct that the said authority to proceed and dispose of the said claim of the petitioners after verifying the same and executing necessary formalities in this regard expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.

The writ petition is disposed of with the said observations."

The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 18083 of 2016 (L/A) had not impleaded the present petitioners as respondents in the said writ petition but they were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition filed by the respondent nos. 6 to 12 in which orders were passed on 28th of July, 2016.

A perusal of the aforesaid two orders indicates that the dispute was sought to be resolved by giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and then making payment of compensation upon verification as all the plots, 194-ka, 194-kha and 194-ga are all contiguous to each other.

It appears that so far as the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent nos. 6 to 12 is concerned, that is Plot no. 194-ka and Plot no. 194-kha, came to be decided by the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate by the impugned order dated 19th of October, 2016 which has been challenged through the amendment application. The said order, however, does not refer to the order dated 4th of August, 2016 passed in relation to Plot no. 194-ga. It is stated at the bar by learned counsel for the parties that the respondent nos. 13 to 15 have been paid compensation but according to the petitioners, they were not entitled for the same.

Thus, the claim of the petitioners and the respondent nos. 6 to 12 has been rejected for the reasons as disclosed in the order dated 19th of October, 2016. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 12 Sri V.K. Mishra states that the respondent nos. 6 to 12 are also aggrieved by the said order and he submits that the representation has been incorrectly rejected inasmuch as their land, namely, Plot no. 194-kha has also been occupied for which the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

A perusal of the order dated 19th October, 2016 indicates that representations were being rejected as in the opinion of the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, it was only Plot nos. 194-kha and 194-ga that had been effected by such acquisition. It is not understood that if Plot no. 194-kha was found to have been affected, then what reason compelled the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate to reject the representation of the respondent nos. 6 to 12 in respect of the said plot.

Apart from this, the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate has only referred to the Survey report of the agency to conclude that Plot no. 194-ka is not affected. The reports of the ''Lekhpal'' that have been brought on record which are annexed as Annexure nos. 4 and 5 to the writ petition are relied upon whereon an enquiry being made, the Lekhpal came to the conclusion that Plot no. 194-ka was also affected.

We are of the opinion that this enquiry which was made by the Lekhpal does not appear to have been concluded by making any appropriate measurement of all the three Plots. In order to arrived at the correct conclusion as to which portion of the aforesaid three Plots were actually occupied for the purpose of road widening, in the absence of any measurement, the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate also could not have abruptly concluded that the land of the petitioners or the respondent nos. 6 to 12 had not been occupied. The Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to have carried out a Survey according to the process of demarcation as provided under The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before arriving at any such conclusion, This having not been done, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated 19th October, 2016, as challenged through the amendment application, cannot be sustained.

Over and above this, it would have been appropriate for the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate to have heard the petitioners, the respondent nos. 6 to 12 as well as respondent nos. 13, 14 and 15 together in order to resolve the dispute. The order dated 19th of October, 2016 takes notice of the directions dated 28th of July, 2016 but it does not refer to the directions issued by the High Court on 04.08.2016 in the writ petition filed by respondent nos. 13, 14 and 15. The issue should have been resolved by hearing all the claims together and by passing a common order after carrying out a Survey of the Plots in terms as referred to herein above.

Consequently, we are not at the moment issuing any notice to the respondent nos. 13, 14 and 15 inasmuch as they would also be getting an opportunity to present their stand before the authority concerned, namely, the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sultanpur. The Prescribed Authority/Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate shall deal with the matter in accordance with law.

The order dated 19th October, 2016 is therefore quashed. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate to proceed to carry out a Survey in terms of Section 24 of The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. It shall be open for the petitioners to file an appropriate application for demarcation and the same can also be done by respondent nos. 6 to 12. However, such application shall be heard and decided only after putting the respondent nos. 13 to 15 to notice. The Authority shall first determine the boundaries of Plot nos. 194-ka, 194-kha and 194-ga and then the status of occupancy in relation to road widening of N.H. 56, and then pass an order to the extent of land being affected in relation thereto. It shall be open for the parties to file their objections against each other in the said proceedings. The proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Prescribed Authority shall award compensation thereafter by proceeding in accordance with any decision taken in relation to the status of occupancy of the land having been occupied for road widening of National Highway no. 56 as observed above.