RADHA CHARAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 15 December 2017, passed by the Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Varanasi, whereby, after hearing the parties concerned, namely petitioner and Shanti Devi, respondent no.6, the authority has observed that Shanti Devi-respondent no.6 is the recorded tenure holder and has directed payment of compensation to respondent no.6 after obtaining an affidavit from her that in case any adverse orders are passed against her, then the amount of compensation along with interest would be returned by her.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4-the National Highways Authority of India and learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property on which there is a dispute regarding compensation, the petitioner had acquired his right over the land by means of a will dated 20 December 1999 for which the petitioner has approached the concerned Court for getting his right adjudicated and that case is still pending. It has further been contended that the impugned order dated 15 December 2017, passed by the Competent Authority is illegal and erroneous as in view of the dispute between the parties, the Competent Authority ought to have deposited the amount of compensation as provided in Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair to Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act) that is, in the Authority to which a reference under Section 64 would be submitted.