High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raj Kumar Nigam v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 30838 of 1999  RD-AH 12931 (26 July 2007)
"Court No. 10"
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30838 of 1999.
Raj Kumar Nigam
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3 as well as Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to either return land of petitioner plot no. 188 situated at village Harwara, Allahabad, acquired vide notification dated 9th June, 1979, under Section 4 and 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, or to except the same as the land of other similarly situate persons has been exempted, within time specified by this Court. The further relief sought for to command the respondent to pay compensation of the used land of petitioner acquired vide notification dated 9th June, 1979 under Section 4 and 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession of petitioner land till return of this land to the petitioner within time specified by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents-authorities have not utilised the land of the petitioner acquired by notification, referred to above. In reply, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that in pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the possession of the land in question has been taken over by the State Government and the same handed over to Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, as stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.2. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that since possession of the land in question has been taken over by respondent no. 2, the same has been vested in the State/Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad and after vesting the land, neither the provision of Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, nor the proviso to Section 17 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, is attracted to return the land as relief sought for by the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any justification to grant any relief as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.