Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 113654 (ALL)

YOGENDRA PRASAD TRIPATHI v. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/43690/2024 · 2025-04-06

Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49519-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43690 of 2024 Petitioner :- Yogendra Prasad Tripathi Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhtar Ali,Prabhakar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Vivek Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Shri Akhtar Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for respondents no.3 and 4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is bhoomidhar of Gata no.65 area 2.1260 hectare, Village- Bankata, Tappa- Kudaran, Pargana- Basti Purab, Tehsil- Bansi, District- Siddhartha Nagar. According to the petitioner, their existed a brick kiln over the said land in the name and style of M/s Pankaj Brick Field. The land of the petitioner aforesaid was acquired under the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013. An award was declared on 27.04.2023. It is submitted that the award has been wrongly made treating the land to be agricultural, although, the land was abadi in character. 3. It is also his case that no compensation has been determined for the 'chimni' existing over the acquired land. The petitioner is stated to have made representations to the Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer for granting adequate compensation for the acquired land and the 'chimni'. His submission is that the dispute be referred to the Authority under Section 65 of the Act. 4. Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Panel Counsel of respondents no.1 and 2 very fairly submits that he has no objection in case the issue relating to adequacy of compensation is referred to the Authority under Section 65 of the Act. The same stand has been taken by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to refer the dispute within four weeks to respondent no.4 for determination in accordance with law. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad