AVINASH PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed the relief to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner compensation along with damages forthwith without any delay and demur, for the land of the petitioner, which has been utilized by the respondents No. 2 and 3 for construction of a stop dam. Alternatively, a relief is claimed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ, direction or order in appropriate nature commanding the respondents to remove their encroachment on the lands of the petitioner where a stop dam has been constructed and restore the land of the petitioner in its original condition to the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner came before this Court stating that the land bearing Khasra No. 583/1 of Patwari Halka No. 29, area 2.932 hectares (about 8 acres) situated at village Kailwara, District Katni, is owned by him. The land is situated less than one kilometer from the main city of Katni and is precious one having a good market price. It is contended that the land was belonging to one Shri Arvind Pathak, the father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner is owner of the land being one of the heirs of late Shri Arvind Pathak. It is contended by the petitioner that he came to know that respondents No. 2 and 3 started construction of stop dam on the river flowing by the side of the land of the petitioner and for the said purposes, have encroached on the land of the petitioner. Immediate action was taken by the petitioner. Photographs of the construction site were taken, documents were asked for and thereafter he came before this Court complaining that without taking any action for acquisition of the land of the petitioner, unauthorizedly the respondents have entered on the land and precious property of the petitioner and have taken possession of the same. It was contended that such an action of the respondents is thus per se illegal. The reliefs aforesaid have been claimed on the basis of such allegations. It is contended that the law is well settled in this respect by the pronouncement of judgments by the Apex Court in several cases and, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation as also to restore back the land of the petitioner to him.

(3.) An additional return was filed by the respondents again reiterating the facts as have been stated by them in the return and a copy of deposit of the amount towards the compensation has been placed on record. The petitioner has again filed an additional rejoinder stating that allegations made by the respondents are incorrect. The compensation of land which was to be acquired, was already assessed as was indicated in the letter of the respondents themselves but as against that amount, a paltry amount has been deposited by the respondents and, therefore, it is clear that they are not interested in paying the compensation to the persons, who are going to be affected by construction of such dam.