Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5012-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3810 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shambhoo Sharan Upadhyay And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Shukla,Mohan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Srivastava Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Office report dated 18.03.2024 indicates that the notice sent to respondent no. 4 by registered post has been duly delivered. 2. Accordingly, service on the said respondent is held to be sufficient. 3. None is present on behalf of the said respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 5. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders dated 21.09.2023 and 29.04.2022 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gorakhpur and consequential order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the respondent-Bank. 6. The facts in brief are as follows: "The grand-father of the petitioners herein, namely Shri Nath, was recorded Bhumidhar of plot no. 29, situated in Village Masidiya and plot no. 346, situated in Village Dadaura, Tehsil Khajani, District Gorakhpur. It was acquired by the State Government for construction of link express way. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gorakhpur (respondent no. 2 herein), determined compensation for the acquired land and in pursuance of an award, paid a sum of Rs. 82,26,043/- as compensation to him by transfer of the said amount to his Account No. 50100460826012 in HDFC Bank. He died on 07.09.2022 (date wrongly mentioned as 07.09.2023 in the impugned order). Shri Nath, during his lifetime, transferred the compensation amount to the account of the petitioners. Respondent no. 4 filed an application on 28.04.2022 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer raising protest to the act of Shri Nath in transferring the compensation amount to the account of the petitioners. He mentioned in his application that a civil suit instituted by him against Shri Nath is pending since 2012 and during its pendency there was no justification for transfer of the said amount to the account of the petitioners. He also relied on a will dated 14.10.2011 allegedly executed by Shri Nath bequeathing his entire property in equal share to both his sons. 7. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 has noted that the money was released in favor of Shri Nath on basis of an undertaking and an affidavit to the effect that in case any adverse order is passed in relation to title over the acquired land or compensation amount by any court of law, it would be binding on him and he would refund the amount to the State Government alongwith interest. Shri Nath after receipt of compensation amount, transferred the same to the account of the petitioners. It has been observed in the impugned order that in case any adverse order is passed in the civil suit, the realization of the compensation amount will pose a problem, as such it is desirable that the said amount be kept secured in the Bank. 8. Special Land Acquisition Officer addressed a communication dated 29.04.2022 to the Bank to ensure that a sum of Rs. 82,26,043/- remains secured even if it has been transferred by Shri Nath to some other accounts. In consequence, the Bank had frozen the account of the petitioners to the said extent and the same was communicated to them by the Bank by letter dated 07.08.2023. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Shri Nath was Bhumidhar of the acquired land. The trial court while deciding the injunction application filed by respondent no. 4 in the suit, rejected the same vide order dated 16.03.2022 after recording a specific finding that the land was recorded in his name as Bhumidhari. Consequently, the claim of respondent no. 4 in the acquired property by birth was not accepted. The appeal filed by respondent no. 4 against the said order was also dismissed by order dated 31.05.2022. It is urged that after Shri Nath was paid compensation, the second respondent, i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, ceased to have any jurisdiction over the compensation amount. It was not open to him to adjudicate on the issue of succession upon death of Shri Nath in the instant proceedings. 10. We find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the property was recorded as Bhumidhari of Shri Nath, therefore, once compensation was paid to him, respondent no. 2 ceased to have jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to succession upon his death. The application filed by respondent no. 4 staking claim over compensation was not maintainable. The civil suit filed by respondent no. 4 is already pending and any claim over compensation can be accepted only if it is decreed in his favour. 11. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order imposing restraint on the right of the petitioners to withdraw amount from their bank account is wholly illegal. 12. In consequence, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. 13. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 9.1.2025/Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad