Madhvendra Narayan Misra v. Union of India and 3 Others

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35070 of 2023 Petitioner :- Madhvendra Narayan Misra Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Rai,Chandrahas Singh Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Shivesh Mishra,Surabhi Pandey,Suresh Chandra Pandey,Vivek Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶1Heard Shri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Union of India, Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri Suresh Chandra Pandey for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶2The instant petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by respondent no.2 i.e. the Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Prayagraj deciding title in respect of the super-structure existing over the acquired land.

¶3The petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 both claim title over the super-structure. The said issue has been decided by the Competent Authority in purported exercise of powers under the Railways Act, 1989, under which, the acquisition was made.

¶4The short submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute relating to the person entitled to compensation has to be referred to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in terms of Section 20-H (4) of the Railways Act, 1989 which reads as follows:- "20H (4):- If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated."

¶5Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not in a position to dispute the said proposition of law. He, however, submits that the question of title over super-structure has been rightly decided by the Competent Authority.

¶6As the parties dispute title in respect of super-structure existing over the acquired land, in our considered opinion, the said dispute ought to have been referred to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction as it falls squarely within the ambit of its jurisdiction in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 20-H of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order so far it decides rival claim in respect of title over super-structure is hereby set aside.

¶7The respondent No.2 is directed to refer the said dispute to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for being decided in accordance with law. The compensation amount paid to respondent nos.3 and 4 for the super-structure shall abide by the decision that shall be taken by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.

¶8The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.12.2023 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, A.C.J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad