PARAS NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 5.

(2.) By means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to vacate the the petitioner's land situated at Village Bahudari, Pargana Naugarh, Tehsil Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar and also to compensate the petitioner for the unauthorised and illegal occupation of the aforesaid property.

(3.) According to the petitioner, a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), so far as it relates to the petitioner land situated over Gata No. 60 Ga measuring area 0.0710 hectares at Village Bahudari, Pargana Naugarh, Tehsil Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar has been illegally issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to file his objection under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 and 7 owned piece of land bearing Gata No. 60Ga area 0.071 hectares which was their ancestral property and was inherited by the petitioner in succession. In the revenue records i.e. Fasli year 1416-1421, the name of the petitioner has been recorded as Bhumidhari with transferable rights and in para 6 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the concerned Lekhpal somewhere in the year 2012 informed the petitioner that the land in question is not available and the same has been merged in the road constructed by the Public Works Department. Thereafter, an application under R.T.I. Act was moved seeking information as to whether the land in question has been acquired which was replied vide letter dated 07.03.2013, providing information that the office has no any documents relating to the proposal for acquisition. It has also been informed that the land in question is a form part of Naugarh Badhani, Shrawasti high way and therefore, a detailed representation was filed upon which no action has been taken, resulting into filing of the instant petition.