LALLU RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 23.12.2014, passed by the Special Judge, (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Allahabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for payment of compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013), by virtue of section 24(1)(a) thereof, has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, relating to matter in issue, are rather disturbing and have been noticed in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 14.10.1999: Durga Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others,, 1999 36 AllLR 64.

(3.) It appears that for construction of Gyanpur Pump Canal System, which included main canal, distributaries and minors project, land of large number of farmers was utilized without undertaking any valid land acquisition proceedings and making payment of compensation in lieu thereof. The construction work for the project started in the year 1978 and was spread in four districts of Allahabad, Varanasi, Mirzapur and Sant Ravidas Nagar. Proceedings for requisition of land under U.P. Rural Development Act (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948, had been initiated, but even such proceedings were not concluded. It was observed by the Division Bench that since the project was not for any temporary purpose, therefore, the proceedings under the aforesaid Requisition Act was not a valid proceeding. A report from Central Bureau of Investigating was called for in the matter. After taking note of the report submitted by the investigating agency, it was found that 2650 persons had not been paid compensation, despite the fact that their land had been walked into, and possessed illegally by the State, for the public project in question, which was duly sanctioned by the Planning Commission of India and was to be executed by the State of U.P. Faced with the aforesaid factual scenario, suggestion by the State to ensure ex-post facto proceedings formalized by the State Government, announcing its intention to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1984) for a public project, was termed 'ridiculous' by the Division Bench. However, as the land had already been utilized for the project, the Division Bench of this Court found that "only the modalities for making a calculation for payment of compensation to agriculturists whose land has been possessed by the State can be borrowed to make the best out of a bad situation." Ultimately, following directions were issued in the matter on 14.10.1999:-