# Smt. Mutuni v. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 953
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 60108 of 2008
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mutuni-v-the-collector-district-sant-ravidas-nagar-bhadohi-ors-49449
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 300-A - Right to Property -
Adequate Compensation Right to property
is not merely a constitutional or statutory
right but also a human right. In a welfare
State, statutory authorities are bound to
pay adequate compensation to persons
whose property has been acquired by the
appropriate Government. Article 300-A
provides that no person shall be deprived
of his property save by authority of law.
Taking possession of or acquiring the
property
of
a
citizen
amounts
to
deprivation, which can occur only in
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with "law". Such deprivation
cannot be effected by executive fiat,
order, or administrative caprice, but only
by following the procedure prescribed by
statute.
The
obligation
to
pay
compensation,
though
not
expressly
mentioned in Article 300-A, is implicit
therein. (Para 13)

B. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Sections 23 & 23(1-A) - Compensation -
Interest
-
Petitioner, Bhumidhar with transferable
rights of Plot Nos. 437 and 438 (total area
10 bissa 5 dhur), was dispossessed in

## Text

11 All. Smt. Mutuni Vs. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi & Ors.
953
more consistent with the alleged object and
policy of the Act. In considering whether
there is ambiguity, the Court must look at
the statute as a whole and consider the
appropriateness of the meaning in a
particular context avoiding absurdity and
inconsistencies or unreasonableness which
may render the statute unconstitutional.

44 . It is equally well settled that in
interpreting a statute, effort should be made
to give effect to each and every word used
by the Legislature. The Courts always
presume that the Legislature inserted every
part thereof for a purpose and the
legislative intention is that every part of the
statute should have effect. A construction
which
attributes
redundancy
to
the
legislature will not be accepted except for
compelling
reasons
such
as
obvious
drafting errors.

45. Be that as it may, having
considered the provisions enshrined under
Zila Panchayat elections where remedy of
appeal lies from every order made by the
Judge under Rule 44, it has to be seen that
Rule 44 provides the grounds on which a
candidate other than the returned candidate
may be declared to have been elected. In
the
present facts
of
the
case, the
uncontested election of returning candidate
has been declared as void and as there
was no other candidate, who has been
duly elected, no ground exists on
which candidate other than returned
candidate could have been declared
elected. Thus, impugned order does
not fall within the ambit of Rule 44,
hence no appeal lies.

46. In view of the above submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and
the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds
that present writ petition is maintainable.

47. Put up as fresh on 20.11.2023 to
be heard on merits at 2:00 P.M.

48. As an interim measure, the State
Election Commissioner (Panchayat and
Local Bodies), State Election Commission,
U.P., Lucknow i.e. respondent no.2 is
directed not to notify the elections in
question without leave of the Court.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 953
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 60108 of 2008

Smt. Mutuni ...Petitioner
Versus
The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar
Bhadohi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 300-A - Right to Property -
Adequate Compensation Right to property
is not merely a constitutional or statutory
right but also a human right. In a welfare
State, statutory authorities are bound to
pay adequate compensation to persons
whose property has been acquired by the
appropriate Government. Article 300-A
provides that no person shall be deprived
of his property save by authority of law.
Taking possession of or acquiring the
property
of
a
citizen
amounts
to
deprivation, which can occur only in
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with "law". Such deprivation
cannot be effected by executive fiat,
order, or administrative caprice, but only
by following the procedure prescribed by
statute.
The
obligation
to
pay
compensation,
though
not
expressly
mentioned in Article 300-A, is implicit
therein. (Para 13)

B. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Sections 23 & 23(1-A) - Compensation -
Interest
-
Petitioner, Bhumidhar with transferable
rights of Plot Nos. 437 and 438 (total area
10 bissa 5 dhur), was dispossessed in
1988.
Constructions,
including
Morwa
Bridge and Road, were made by the
P.W.D. over the said land, leaving no
portion vacant. However, no acquisition
proceedings
were
initiated
nor
compensation
paid.
Petitioner
was
subsequently paid Rs. 3,28,000/-, which
was less than the market value based on
the circle rate. Held: Petitioner is entitled
to compensation for the said plots to be
calculated in accordance with Section 23
of
the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894.
Collector was directed to determine the
compensation on the basis of the factors
enumerated
in
Section
23
and
the
prevailing market value of the land.
Statutory
benefits,
including
interest
under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, 1894,
was directed to be paid from 1988, the
date of dispossession. Cost of the writ
petition was quantified at Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs). (Paras 17, 19)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)

The petitioner is the Bhumidhar of
Plot No. 437 (area 0-3-0) and Plot No. 438
(area 0-7-5) situated in Village Lakhanpur
alias Abhayanpur, Tehsil Bhadohi, District
Sant Ravidas Nagar. The total area of the
aforesaid plots is 10 bissa 5 dhur (0-10-5).
The said fact is supported by the Khatauni
of the plots annexed as Annexure No. 1 to
the writ petition. In 1998, the State Public
Works Department, Gyanpur, District Sant
Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi took possession of
the aforesaid plots for construction of
Morwa Bridge on Bhadohi - Varanasi Road
without acquiring the plots and without
following the procedure prescribed in the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as, 'Act, 1894') or in any other
relevant statute. No compensation was paid
to the petitioner for the aforesaid plots
despite repeated representations by the
petitioner to the State Government and its
officers. The petitioner filed C.M. Writ
Petition No. 17681 of 2002 in this Court
which was disposed of by order dated
29.4.2002 directing the Collector / District
Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar to decide
the
representation
submitted
by
the
petitioner for payment of compensation. In
response to the order dated 29.4.2002, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sant
Ravidas Nagar, District Bhadohi, vide
order dated 11.8.2003, summoned a report
from the Tehsildar, Sant Ravidas Nagar,
Bhadohi and the Executive Engineer, State
Public Works Department. A report dated
5.9.2003 was submitted before the Special
Land Acquisition Officer noting that
Morwa
Bridge
and
road
had
been
constructed
by
the
Public
Works
Department over the whole of Plot Nos.
437 and 438. Consequently, the total area
of Plot Nos. 437 and 438, of which the
petitioner was the Bhumidhar, was in
possession of the Public Works Department
and the petitioner stood dispossessed from
the plots. Subsequently, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer vide his letter dated
16.9.2003
requested
the
Executive
11 All. Smt. Mutuni Vs. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi & Ors.
955
Engineer, State Public Works Department
to pay compensation to the petitioner. An
order dated 5.11.2003 was also passed by
the Collector holding the Public Works
Department
responsible
to
pay
compensation to the petitioner.

2. However, despite the aforesaid
orders and letters written by different
officers, the petitioner was not paid any
compensation. Hence, the present petition
was filed praying for a mandamus directing
the respondent no. 3, i.e., the Executive
Engineer,
Public
Works
Department
(P.W.D.) to pay compensation to the
petitioner for the plots at the present market
rate along with solatium, interest at the rate
of 12% and additional interest and also for
payment of special damages to the
petitioner for not paying compensation to
her till date.

3. On 28.11.2008, the following order
was passed by the Court :-

"Despite the orders of this Court
dated 20.11.2008 the learned standing
counsel is not in a position to explain as to
why compensation in terms of the order
dated 5.11.2003 passed by the District
Magistrate has not been paid to the
petitioner who is a poor widow.

In the given circumstances we
have no alternative but to direct the
respondent No. 3 to be present before this
Court along with the admitted amount of
compensation to be paid to the petitioner
and to explain why it has not been paid to
her on the next date fixed.

List it on 12.12.2008."

4. Subsequently, the case was again
taken up on 12.12.2008 when the Executive
Engineer, P.W.D. who was personally
present in the Court pleaded his inability to
pay compensation to the petitioner because
there was no sanction by the State
Government. The Court on 12.12.2008
passed the following order : -

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri C.K. Rai, learned
Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

Petitioner's land was acquired
without taking recourse to the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act as a result where of
petitioner approached to this court by filing
writ petition wherein direction was issued
pursuant to which District Magistrate, Sant
Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi) has passed a
detailed order on 5th November, 2003
wherein claim of petitioner was recorded
and further direction was given to the
Public Works Department to make payment
of compensation to the petitioner to the
extent of the land stated to have been
occupied by the P.W.D.

When
nothing
was
done
petitioner filed this petition in which on
28.11.2008 following order was passed-

"Despite the orders of this Court
dated 20.11.2008 the learned Standing
Counsel is not in a position to explain as to
why the compensation in terms of the order
dated 5.11.2003 passed by the District
Magistrate has not been paid to the
petitioner who is a poor widow.

In the given circumstances we
have no alternative but to direct the
respondent No. 3 to be present before this
Court along with the admitted amount of
compensation to be paid to the petitioner
and to explain why it has not been paid to
her on the next date fixed."
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

On communication of this order
Shri F. Bhan Rao, Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. Gyan Pur, Sant Ravi Das Nagar
(Bhadohi) is present before this court.

Sri C.K. Rai, learned Standing
Counsel on the basis of the instructions so
received has urged that demand was made
from the State Government to release all
the permitted dues way back in the year
2004 and copy of the said letter dated 31st
June, 2004 has been placed before this
court. There after there appears to have
been done nothing in order to ensure
payment to the petitioner. It is only after
the order was passed on 28.11.2008 on the
basis of the instructions so received
from Sri Rao, Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. who is present in the court
learned Standing Counsel Sri Rai
submits that it is not possible to make
payment to the petitioner in view of
there being no sanction by the State
Government.

We are surprised to hear the
statement being made before this court
in as much as five years have passed
after the order passed by the District
Magistrate, i.e., dated 5th November,
2003. Petitioner who appears to be a
poor widow is being harassed for the
last five years by the authority.

In view of the aforesaid, we
direct
the
petitioner
to
implead
Principal Secretary, P.W.D. as respondent
no. 4 in this petition during course of the
day.

In the circumstances, indicated
above, we have no alternative but to
summon the respondent no. 4 before this
court on 18th December, 2008 on which
date
the
said
respondent
alongwith
Executive Engineer, P.W.D. and the
Collector, Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi)
shall be present in the court.

Let a copy of this order be
provided to Sri C.K. Rai, learned Standing
Counsel who has attended the matter free
of charge, by tomorrow who is to ensure
compliance of this order."

5. Subsequently, a counter affidavit
was filed on behalf of the State respondents
in which it has been stated that the
Collector,
Sant
Ravidas
Nagar
has
calculated the compensation amount as
Rs.5,24,672/-. The said amount includes
the market value of the plots calculated on
the basis of circle rate of Rs.32,812/- per
biswa, 30% solatium and 20% other
charges. The total market value of the land
was determined as Rs.3,36,328.12/-. A
cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was produced by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the
Court for payment to the petitioner. It was
stated
that sanction from the
State
Government was necessary for payment of
balance amount as P.W.D. did not have
sufficient amount to pay the balance. This
Court after taking note of the aforesaid
facts and the statement, passed an order
dated 18.12.2008:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Chandra Kesh Rai,
learned Standing Counsel.

An affidavit has been filed by Mr.
F. Khan Rao, Executive Engineer, who is
present in Court along with Sri Kapil Dev
Principal
Secretary,
Public
Works
Department, Lucknow, and Smt. Dipika
Duggal, District Collector.

It
is
unfortunate
that
the
Secretary of the Public Works Department,
11 All. Smt. Mutuni Vs. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi & Ors.
957
is stating before the Court that Public
Works Department did not have enough
amount in its coffers to make the payment
as proposed by the District Collector and a
draft of only Rs.2 Lacs has been presented
before the Court.

However, upon instructions from
Sri Kapil Dev, Sri C.K. Rai states that the
proposed entire amount shall be disbursed
to the petitioner within 15 days from today.

List the matter on 9.1.2009.

In case the entire balance amount
as proposed by the Collector is disbursed
to the petitioner by the said date fixed, then
in that event the said Officer need not be
present in Court on the date fixed.

A draft of Rs.2 Lacs has been
handed over to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, who shall issue appropriate
receipt to the learned Standing Counsel for
the same."

6. Subsequently, again a counter
affidavit dated 13.04.2009 was filed by the
State respondents. In Paragraph 6 of the
counter affidavit, it has been stated that
Rs.1,28,000/- was paid to the petitioner on
7.1.2009. The said fact has been stated in
paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit
filed by the Standing Counsel.

7. When this petition was heard on
17.5.2023, the Standing Counsel handed
over the calculation chart indicating as to
how the amount of Rs.5,24,671.88/- was
obtained. The amount of Rs.5,24,671.30/-
includes the solatium and 20% other
charges but does not include the interest
stipulated under Section 23 (1-A) of the
Act, 1894 and other charges which the
petitioner would have been entitled if the
plots had been acquired under the Act,
1894. The said calculation chart is a part of
the record of the case. Till date, the
petitioner has been paid only Rs.3,28,000/-
which is less than even the market value of
the plots calculated on the basis of circle
rate and shown in the calculation chart.

8. It was argued by the counsel for the
petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner
was owner of the plots and the respondents
have taken possession of the same without
taking recourse to the provisions of Act,
1894. It was argued that the respondents
have taken possession of the plots illegally
and deprived the petitioner of her property
without authority of law in violation of
Article 300-A of the Constitution. It was
argued by the counsel for the petitioner that
she was entitled to compensation calculated
on the market rate of the plots and in
accordance with Section 23 of the Act,
1894 and also for damages for having
been illegally deprived from possession
of her plots and also the cost of the writ
petition.

9. Contesting the claim of the
petitioner, the Standing Counsel has argued
that no proceedings for acquisition of the
plots of the petitioner were taken and,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be paid
compensation
in
accordance
with
Section 23 of the Act, 1894 and the cost
price of the land has already been paid
to the petitioner in as much as
Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner
on 18.12.2008 and subsequently, a
cheque of Rs. 1,28,000/- (Cheque
No.A00979811) dated 31.12.2008 has
also been given to the petitioner. It was
argued that in view of the aforesaid, the
petitioner has already been paid the cost
price of the land and the petition is,
therefore, liable to be dismissed.
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10.

We
have
considered
the
submissions of the counsel for the parties
and also perused the records.

11. It is the admitted case of the
parties
that
the
petitioner
was
the
Bhumidhar with transferable rights of Plot
Nos. 437 and 438 (total area 10 bissa 5
dhur). It is also apparent that the petitioner
was dispossessed from the plots in 1988. It
is also the admitted case of the State
Government that no proceedings under any
relevant statute were taken to acquire the
plots of the petitioner and to pay
compensation to her in accordance with the
said statute. It is also the admitted case of
the State Government that constructions,
including Morwa Bridge and Road, have
been made over the plots by the P.W.D.
and no area in the said plot is at present
vacant. It is also apparent from the records
that the petitioner has still not been paid
even the market value of the plots as shown
in the calculation chart.

12. Evidently, the petitioner has been
deprived of her property rights without
following the procedure prescribed in law
and without paying any compensation to
her. The issue before this Court is the
remedy to which the petitioner is entitled.

13. Article 300-A of the Constitution
provides that no person shall be deprived of
his property save by authority of law. In
Tukaram
Kana
Joshi
&
Ors.
vs.
Maharashtra
Industrial
Development
Corporation & Ors. 2013 (1) SCC 353, the
Supreme Court observed that 'even after
the right to property ceased to be a
fundamental right, taking possession of or
acquiring the property of a citizen mostly
certainly tantamounts to deprivation and
such deprivation can take place only in
accordance with "law" as the said word has
specifically been used in Article 300-A of
the Constitution.' The deprivation cannot
be done by way of executive fiat or order
or administrative caprice but can be only
by resorting to procedure prescribed by
the statute. It was further observed by the
Supreme Court that right to property is not
only a constitutional or a statutory right but
also a human right and in a welfare State,
the statutory authorities are bound to pay
adequate compensation to persons whose
property have been acquired by the
appropriate Government. It was further
observed by the Supreme Court that in a
democratic polity, governed by Rule of
Law, the State cannot be allowed to deprive
a citizen of his property without authority
of law.

14. The aforesaid view was also
reiterated by the Supreme Court in its
judgment reported in Vidya Devi vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2020 (2)
SCC 569. In Vidya Devi (supra), the
Supreme Court held that the obligation of
the
State
to
pay
compensation
for
dispossessing a citizen from his property
can be inferred from Article 300-A of the
Constitution
of
India.
The
relevant
observations of the Supreme Court in
Vidya Devi (supra) are reproduced below :-

"12.2. The right to property
ceased to be a fundamental right by the
Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment)
Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a
human right in a welfare State, and a
Constitutional right under Article 300-A of
the Constitution. Article 300-A provides
that no person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law. The
State cannot dispossess a citizen of his
property except in accordance with the
procedure
established
by
law.
The
obligation to pay compensation, though
11 All. Smt. Mutuni Vs. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi & Ors.
959
not expressly included in Article 300-A,
can be inferred in that Article.

12.3. To forcibly dispossess a
person of his private property, without
following due process of law, would be
violative of a human right, as also the
constitutional right under Article 300-A of
the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the
judgment
in
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai,
wherein this Court held that:

"6. ... Having regard to the
provisions contained in Article 300-A of the
Constitution, the State in exercise of its
power of "eminent domain" may interfere
with the right of property of a person by
acquiring the same but the same must be
for a public purpose and reasonable
compensation therefore must be paid."
(emphasis supplied)

12.4. In N. Padmamma v. S.
Ramakrishna Reddy, this Court held that:

"21. If the right of property is a
human right as also a constitutional right,
the same cannot be taken away except in
accordance with law. Article 300-A of the
Constitution protects such right. The
provisions of the Act seeking to divest such
right, keeping in view of the provisions of
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India,
must be strictly construed." (emphasis
supplied)"

15. In light of the aforesaid judgments
of the Supreme Court, it is held that the
petitioner is entitled to compensation
calculated in accordance with law and not
only the cost price of the plots, i.e., its
market value. The stand of the State
respondents that the petitioner is not
entitled to any compensation as she has
already been paid the market value of the
plots stands rejected. The stand of the State
smacks of arbitrariness and is not a stand
expected from a democratic State governed
by Rule of Law but resembles the conduct
of criminals and land mafia who illegally
grab the land of ordinary citizens of this
country and then coerce the citizen to
accept the price fixed by the land grabber.

16. In 1988, when the State
respondents took possession of the plots of
the petitioner, the powers of the appropriate
Government to acquire property of any
citizen, the procedure to be followed while
acquiring the property of any citizen, and
the determination of compensation was
regulated by the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. In case, the plots of the petitioner had
been acquired in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in the Act, 1894, the
petitioner would have been entitled to
compensation for the said plots calculated
in accordance with Section 23 of the Act,
1894. The Act, 1894 has now been repealed
and
the
power
of
the
appropriate
Government to acquire land and the
modalities of payment of compensation are
now regulated by the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013. It would not be
feasible, in the circumstances of the case, to
direct the State respondents to pay
compensation to the petitioner calculated in
accordance
with
the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 as the State took
possession of the land of the petitioner in
1988. The case of the petitioner has to be
considered under the Act, 1894. In Delhi
Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State
of U.P. & Anr. (2022) SCC OnLine SC
1408, where the land loser had not been
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paid compensation and consequently the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed, the
Supreme Court directed that compensation
payable to the land loser be calculated after
determining the market value of the land on
the date the award, regarding other lands
acquired by the appropriate Government,
had been passed and by applying the
yardstick under the Act, 1894. The
Supreme Court further observed that
statutory benefits would be calculated from
the date of the original notification. The
observations of the Supreme Court in
Paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced below :-

"25. On weighing all aspects of
the matter, we deem it appropriate that it
will serve the ends of justice to direct the
respondents to determine the market value
insofar as the appellant's land is concerned
by
reckoning
the
relevant
date
as
09.06.2008 (i.e. the date on which the
award was ultimately passed), by applying
the yardstick under Act, 1894. It is made
clear that only the market value be
determined as on that date but for
awarding the statutory benefits, it shall be
calculated from the date of the original
notification since admittedly the appellant
has been dispossessed on 04.02.2003
pursuant
to
the
notification
dated
17.04.2002. Further, from the date on
which the fresh award is passed pursuant
to this judgment, the appellant would get
the cause of action for seeking reference if
dissatisfied
with
the
quantum
of
compensation awarded. It is made clear
that the determination of compensation, in
this case, shall not give rise to any right in
favour of any other land loser whose land
was acquired under the same notification,
to
seek
for
re-determination
of
compensation where the same has already
attained finality."

17. In the present case also, we
consider it just and equitable to take a
similar approach as adopted by the
Supreme Court in Delhi Airtech Services
(supra). In the present case, the State has
already determined the market value of the
land and has paid part of the market value,
but other statutory benefits as provided
under the Act, 1894 have not been paid to
the petitioner. The petitioner is also entitled
to the statutory benefits under the Act,
1894. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas
Nagar, Bhadohi is directed to determine the
compensation of the land of the petitioner
on the basis of factors enumerated in
Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and on the market value of the plots
as stated in the calculation chart. It is
clarified that the statutory benefits payable
to the petitioner shall be calculated from
1988, i.e., the date on which the petitioner
was dispossessed from the plots. The
statutory benefits include interest to the
petitioner under Section 23(1)(A) of the
Act, 1894.

18. The petitioner is also entitled to
cost of the petition. The petitioner, who is a
widow, has not only been harassed and
forced
by
the
State
Authorities
to
unnecessarily approach this Court in its
equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India but during the
proceedings, the approach of the State
Authorities has been inhuman as would be
evident from their stand that the petitioner
was not entitled to any compensation
because she had already been paid the
market value of her plot. The cost of the
writ petition is quantified as Rs.5,00,000/-
(Five Lacs).

19. The cost of the writ petition shall
be paid to the petitioner within one month
from today. The compensation payable to
11 All. Smt. Mutuni Vs. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi & Ors.
961
the petitioner calculated in accordance with
Section 23 of the Act, 1894 and the interest
under Section 23(1-A) shall be computed
within two months from today and the total
amount quantified, including the balance of
the market value determined by the
Collector, shall be payable within one
month from the date the same is computed.
The due amount shall, in any case, be paid
by 12th of February, 2024.

20. With the aforesaid directions and
observations, the writ petition is allowed.

21. A copy of this order shall be sent
to the Collector, District Sant Ravidas
Nagar,
Bhadohi
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) within three days.
----------