PRABHA WATI KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the daughters of late Ishwar Jeet Singh. Some of his land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of constructing reservoir for Rihand Dam in the year 1956. In lieu of the land which was then acquired, father of the petitioners was granted by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh 10 blghas of land comprising Khasra plots No. 308/19 admeasuring 7 Bighas and No. 365/5 admeasuring 3 Bighas as Government grant vide Government grant dated 14.2.1966 (Annexure '1' to the writ petition). The petitioners have alleged that the respondents illegally acquired plot No. 308/19 admeasuring 7 Bighas after issuing notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and paid a meagre amount at the rate of Rs. 2,800 per Bigha, totalling Rs. 19,600 as compensation without payment of interest or solatium. As regards plot No. 365/5, they have alleged that though the same was included in the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was not included in the list of the plots required by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Moreover, at the same time, while taking possession of other plots, possession over this plot, i.e. plot No. 365/5 was also taken forcibly. The petitioners have further said that they have neither been paid any compensation for this plot nor have the respondents returned the plot despite several requests. A prayer has been made for a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners according to present market rate and also to pay interest and solatium.

(2.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent NO. 1, State of U. P., and respondent NO. 4, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipri, Dudhi, District Sonbhadra. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the General Manager,, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Chairman/Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. who have been impleaded as respondents NO. 2 and 3 respectively. Respondents NO. 2 and 3 have pleaded in their counter-affidavit that the land in question was allotted to the petitioners' father subject to the condition contained in Para 10 of the grant, according to which State Government had the right to acquire the land allotted to the father of the petitioners for any public purpose or any other purpose and in that case, the petitioners would be entitled to such compensation as might be assessed by the District Officer. Further, they have averred that for plot NO. 308/19, the compensation was accepted by the petitioners without any reference or appeal. They have admitted that plot NO. 365/5 was not included in the list of the plots required by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., but possession was taken over this plot which admeasured 2 Bighas and 5 Biswas on the spot at the time of taking of possession. It is also deposed in the counter-affidavit that after the possession of plot NO. 365/5 was taken by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., a request was made to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dudhi/Pipri through letter dated 6.12.1984 (Annexure 'CA-I') requesting him that the land admeasuring 2 Bighas and 5 Biswas be added to the land acquired by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.. and action might be taken for payment of compensation to the owners of the land. Vide letter dated 26.5.1987 (Annexure 'CA-3'), the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dudhi/Pipri informed the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. that the land admeasuring 2 Bighas and 5 Biswas of plot NO. 365/5 was recorded in the name of the petitioners and they were entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,550. Vide letter dated 27.6.1987 (Annexure 'CA-4'), the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. was informed that the Corporation had to deposit the amount of compensation. In pursuance of this letter, the Corporation sent to the petitioners letter dated 13.7.1987 (Annexure 'CA-5') enclosing therewith a draft agreement and asking the petitioners to send the agreement duly executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 6 so that disbursement of compensation could be expedited. This was followed by a reminder dated 25.1.1988 (Annexure 'CA-6'). Vide letter dated 25.1.1988 (Annexure 'CA-7'), written on behalf of the petitioners, the Corporation was informed that compensation offered to them was not acceptable and that compensation should be paid at the market rate of Rs. 14,000 per acre. Required agreement was not executed by the respondents and so compensation could not be paid.

(3.) IN the result, the petition is dismissed with costs quantified as Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand).