# Ram Bharose v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 471
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 33025 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bharose-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48544
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Payment of compensation -
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 64 - any land owner aggrieved
by
the
assessment
of
amount
of
compensation on account of acquisition of
land - remedy to file representation
before the Collector within six weeks from
the date of award . (Para -7 )

Appropriate compensation not paid to petitioner
(poor land owner) - acquisition of his land -
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of 1894 Act
-
award
not
announced
immediately
-
announced after a period of 36 years - by
Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)
-
grievance
raised
-
filing
appeal
to
Commissioner within six weeks from the date of
award - sent through registered-post - rejected
as not maintainable - could not get any relief, as
wrong forum was invoked - objection not filed
under Section 64 of 2013 Act . (Para - 6,7)

HELD:- Be that as it may, it is a case of a poor
land owner, whose land was acquired and
immediately thereafter he raised the issue
regarding amount of compensation though filing
an appeal to the Commissioner, same should be
considered as objection filed in terms of Section
64 of the 2013 Act, so that petitioner is not
deprived of assessment of fair compensation on
account of acquisition of his land. (Para - 8)

Petition allowed. (E-7)
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

Krishna Autar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , WritC No. 44720 of 2016

## Text

5 All. Ram Bharose Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
that the writ petition filed in the year 2001
by the appellants with limited relief of
questioning the Possession Panchanama
dated 20.3.1986, suffered from laches. The
Division Bench of the High Court noted
that the learned single Judge completely
glossed over this crucial aspect of the
matter, and we find no reason to depart
from that conclusion.

24. In view of the above, it is not
necessary for us to dilate on other
contentions raised by the appellants or by
the respondent-State on merits.

25. Having said thus, it must
follow that the present appeal is devoid of
merits and the impugned decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court ought to
be upheld on the threshold ground of writ
petition being barred by laches."

19. So far as the sale deeds
(Annexures-2 and 3), to which reference
has been made by learned Senior Counsel,
are concerned, the same were registered
after issuance of Government Order dated
March 19, 2015. Further in Basudeo's case
(supra), the sale deed was registered in the
year 2015, after the Government Order
dated March 19, 2015 came into force. In
the case in hand, the sale deeds were
registered in the year 2013 on different
dates, much prior to the Government Order
dated March 19, 2015.

20. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any case is made out for
interference in the present case. The same
is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 33025 of 2021

Ram Bharose ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jai Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nipun Singh, Ms. Meenakshi
Singh, Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

(A) Civil Law - Payment of compensation -
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 64 - any land owner aggrieved
by
the
assessment
of
amount
of
compensation on account of acquisition of
land - remedy to file representation
before the Collector within six weeks from
the date of award . (Para -7 )

Appropriate compensation not paid to petitioner
(poor land owner) - acquisition of his land -
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of 1894 Act
-
award
not
announced
immediately
-
announced after a period of 36 years - by
Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)
-
grievance
raised
-
filing
appeal
to
Commissioner within six weeks from the date of
award - sent through registered-post - rejected
as not maintainable - could not get any relief, as
wrong forum was invoked - objection not filed
under Section 64 of 2013 Act . (Para - 6,7)

HELD:- Be that as it may, it is a case of a poor
land owner, whose land was acquired and
immediately thereafter he raised the issue
regarding amount of compensation though filing
an appeal to the Commissioner, same should be
considered as objection filed in terms of Section
64 of the 2013 Act, so that petitioner is not
deprived of assessment of fair compensation on
account of acquisition of his land. (Para - 8)

Petition allowed. (E-7)
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

Krishna Autar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , WritC No. 44720 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. The grievance raised by the
petitioner in the present petition is that
appropriate compensation has not been paid
to him on account of acquisition of his
land. The prayer in the present petition is
for quashing the order dated November 11,
2020 passed by respondent no. 3 vide
which his claim was rejected. Prayer has
also been made for quashing the award
dated
August
17,
2016
passed
by
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition), Kanpur Nagar. Prayer has
been made for payment of compensation in
terms of provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013
(hereinafter
referred to as "2013 Act").

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the land of the petitioner was
proposed to be acquired by issuing
notifications under Section 28 of the U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as "1965 Act") read
with Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as "1894 Act")
on March 10, 1973. As the provisions of
1894 Act are applicable for acquisition of
land under 1965 Act, notification under
Section 6 was issued on August 27, 1980.
The award was announced on August 17,
2016 in terms of the provisions of the 2013
Act.
However,
assessment
of
the
compensation was not appropriately made.
Immediately thereafter on September 6,
2016, the petitioner was advised to file
appeal
against
the
award
to
the
Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.
As the same was not being decided, Writ-C
No. 12744 of 2020 (Ram Bharose Vs. State
of U.P. and others) was filed in this Court.
The same was disposed of on September 8,
2020 with a direction for disposal of the
appeal
filed
by
the
petitioner.
The
impugned order dated November 11, 2020
has been passed thereon.

3. Referring to the judgment of this
Court in Writ-C No. 44720 of 2016
(Krishna Autar and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others), prayer is that the compensation
payable to the petitioner deserves to be
assessed in terms thereof.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondents submitted that the
award having been announced, in the case
in hand, after the 2013 Act came into force,
applying the procedure laid down therein,
petitioner, if aggrieved, has remedy to file
objection under Section 64 thereof. The
same having not been filed, the award
should not be permitted to be challenged by
filing writ petition in this Court. No appeal
was maintainable against the award before
the Commissioner. That remedy was
wrongly availed of by him. No relief can be
granted to him at this stage.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the paper-book.

6. Some of the basic facts, which are
not in dispute in the present petition, are
that for acquisition of land of the petitioner,
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the
1894 Act were issued on March 10, 1973
and August 27, 1980. The award was not
announced immediately thereafter. It was
after a period of 36 years, that on August
17, 2016, the award was announced by the
5 All. Surendra Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition),
Kanpur
Nagar.
Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner, as may have been
advised at that time, instead of filing
objection under Section 64 of the 2013 Act,
preferred appeal to the Commissioner,
Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The same was
rejected as not maintainable.

7. In terms of Section 64 of the 2013
Act, if any land owner is aggrieved by the
assessment of amount of compensation on
account of acquisition of land, he has
remedy to file representation before the
Collector within six weeks from the date of
award. What we find in the case in hand is
that grievance was raised by the petitioner
by filing appeal to the Commissioner
within six weeks from the date of the
award. The same was sent by him through
registered-post. After filing the appeal,
petitioner had been pursuing his appeal but
could not get any relief, as wrong forum
was invoked.

8. Be that as it may, it is a case of a
poor land owner, whose land was acquired
and immediately thereafter he has raised
the
issue
regarding
amount
of
compensation though filing an appeal to the
Commissioner, but, in our opinion, the
same should be considered as objection
filed in terms of Section 64 of the 2013
Act, so that the petitioner is not deprived of
assessment of fair compensation on account
of acquisition of his land. The aforesaid
objection, which was sent by him through
registered post to the Commissioner,
Kanpur
Division,
Kanpur
and
copy
whereof is annexed as Annexure-4, be dealt
with by Collector concerned in terms of
provisions of Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
Needful shall be done within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.

9. The petition stands allowed in
aforesaid terms.
----------
(2022)05ILR A473
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 1002174 of 2015
&
Writ C No. 1002173 of 2015

Surendra Pratap & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shiva Nand Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohd. Murtaza Khan, Prashant
Arora, Vashu Deo Mishra

(A) Tort Law - liability under tort -
Quantum of compensation - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 304 A - The Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (PLI Act) -
Section 3, 6,7,8 - 'just compensation' -
under Section 6 of the PLI Act - Collector
is bound to determine and pay the
compensation
which
is
a
'just
compensation' - courts/ tribunals are not
only
expected
to
grant
'just
compensation', it is the duty of the court
to grant 'just compensation' especially
when the claim arises out of the socioeconomic legislation - determination of
compensation - parameters be established
-
age
,
income
&
number
of
the
dependents
of
deceased
-
claim
of
compensation on both pecuniary and nonpecuniary heads. (Para - 22,23 )

(B) Tort Law - The Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 - Section 3 - provides
for
grant
of
compensation
on
the
principles of 'No fault' - confines to the