RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners land holding has been occupied by the respondent Kanpur Development Authority without any acquisition or requisition by the State hence this petition.

(2.) The petitioners had initially filed the writ petition praying for a mandamus that they be provided the amount of consideration which the respondent Kanpur Development Authority has received from M/s Apes Property Ltd. Connaught Place, New Delhi together with interest thereon in respect of land that had been offered in exchange to the petitioners. However, the writ petition was later on amended with a relief of providing alternative plots to the petitioners as proposed on 10th Jan., 2014 and not to negotiate the same with any third party. A further amendment has been made challenging the resolution of the Board of the Development Authority whereby a decision has been taken not to provide any such consideration or alternative plot but to pay compensation in respect of any land which may have been utilized by the Development Authority for its purpose. Thus a certiorari has been prayed for to quash the resolution dated 17th Jan., 2015. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and we had heard the matter on earlier occasions calling upon learned counsel for the parties to assist the Court with clarifications.

(3.) The dispute raised by the petitioners is essentially to the effect that they are tenure holders of plot no. 1098. The said plots have been acquired by them from it's erstwhile owners. This land had been subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 way back in the 1960s, the award whereof was given on 31st Dec., 1968, after taking possession on 09.09.1968 from its then owner Sri Surendra Nath Seth. The proceedings had been challenged in Writ Petition No. 268 of 1970 which was allowed on 19th Dec., 1973 and the land, including the present plot in dispute, was excluded from acquisition. A special appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge which was dismissed on 22nd Jan., 2008. After the writ petition was allowed, correspondence ensued in order to move for a fresh acquisition but the same could not materialize as in-spite of the proposal, no notification under Sec. 4 of the 1894 Act was issued. Thus, the land of plot no. 1098 area 2.676 hectares remained intact and the petitioners to the extent of their share retained possession of the said land which was in the shape of an uneven plot.