Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26410 (ALL)

TEJVEER SINGH AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

WRIC/6688/2025 · 2025-07-16

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116295-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6688 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tejveer Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Nishad,Shyam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri F.A.Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bulandshahar (respondent no. 2) to decide the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of assignment made by private respondent nos. 3 to 8 in favour of the petitioners and to release the amount to the petitioners, if it has been deposited by the acquiring authority before the respondent no.2. 3. It appears from the record that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894") was published on 16.02.1985 acquiring the land in question situated at Village Nagla Kalan, Pargana and Tehsil Baran, District Bulandshahar. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published on 23.02.1985 and the award was passed by the respondent no.2 on 10.12.1985. Against the said award, the reference was made and the same was registered as Reference No.01 of 2010. Finally, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District Jduge, Court No.13, District Bulandshahar had allowed the reference and modified the award on 07.12.2011. Thereafter, the respondent nos.3 to 8 had made applications under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 before the respondent no.2 on 27.01.2012, which are stated to be pending consideration. 4. Initially, the writ petition was entertained by the coordinate Bench on 06.3.2025 and learned counsel for the petitioners was granted time to bring on record the order sheet of the case under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 and other evidences to prove that the application was filed in the year 2012. Thereafter, on 02.4.2025, when the matter was taken up, supplementary affidavit had been filed stating that order-sheet of the case is not being maintained. Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file an affidavit of respondent no. 2 clarifying when the application under Section 28A was received in his office and in case, it was duly received, why it had been kept pending so far. In response thereof, detailed personal affidavit of respondent no. 2 had been filed. 5. On the basis of averments contained in the personal affidavit, learned Standing Counsel submits that the present petitioners, who are practicing Advocates in District Court Bulandshahar, are doing pairvi of the case of the tenure-holders, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 8. They had filed a notary affidavit alongwith an application stating therein that the present petitioners, who were counsels of the contesting respondents, had misled them by stating that they would get the compensation paid to the tenure-holders by obtaining orders from the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, they had got their signatures attested on blank papers and stamp papers alongwith their thumb impression and also taken their photos and aadhar cards for that purpose. Copies of the applications and notary affidavits are being filed collectively as Annexure No. PA-3 to the said affidavit. 6. We have occasion to peruse the record and the personal affidavit of the respondent no.2. Prima facie, we do not subscribe such practice by an Advocate. As we were inclined to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and also refer to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar for an appropriate investigation in the matter, the petitioners' counsel insists that the matter may be dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Taking lenient view, as the Advocate is a young practitioner of this Court, we dismiss the instant writ petition as withdrawn. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad