Bhurey Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Bhurey vs State of U.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 10, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/459512

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/459512
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.S. Sinha and ;Kamal Kishore, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 10, 2001
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 9055 of 1994
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Property - statutory obligation - Section 28 A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - whether respondents duty bound to implement Order of Special Land Acquisition Officer - held, Orders of S.L.A.O. are to be implemented by respondents and their inaction not justified. -

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhurey

Advocate Prakash Krishna, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Another

Advocate S.K. Mehrotra and ;SC

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2001(1)AWC686; (2001)1UPLBEC584

Excerpt

property - statutory obligation - section 28 a of land acquisition act, 1894 - whether respondents duty bound to implement order of special land acquisition officer - held, orders of s.l.a.o. are to be implemented by respondents and their inaction not justified. - d. s. sinha, j.1.heard sri prakash krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and sri s. k. mehrotra, the learned brief holder of the state of u. p., representing the respondents.2. by means of instant petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner prays, in substance, for direction to the respondents for implementation of the order dated 31st march, 1993, passed by the special land acquisition officer, moradabad, the respondent no. 2, in proceedings under section 28a of the land acquisition act, 1894, hereinafter called the 'act'. a copy of the said order is annexure-2 to the petition.3. neither is there anything in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents nor has anything been pointed out by the learned counsel representing the respondents which may justify the inaction on the part of the respondent no. 2 in not implementing the order dated 31st march, 1993. it cannot be gainsaid that implementation of the order passed under section 28a of the act is statutory duty of the authority concerned. indeed, he is obliged to do so.4. for what has been said above, the petition succeeds, and is allowed. the respondents, jointly and severally, shall take appropriate steps for enforcement of the order dated 31st march, 1993, (annexure-2 to the petition), and ensure that the order is enforced in accordance with law within a period of six months, to be computed from today.

Full Judgment

D. S. Sinha, J.

1.Heard Sri Prakash Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, the learned brief holder of the State of U. P., representing the respondents.

2. By means of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays, in substance, for direction to the respondents for implementation of the order dated 31st March, 1993, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad, the respondent No. 2, in proceedings under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the 'Act'. A copy of the said order is Annexure-2 to the petition.

3. Neither is there anything in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents nor has anything been pointed out by the learned counsel representing the respondents which may justify the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 2 in not implementing the order dated 31st March, 1993. It cannot be gainsaid that implementation of the order passed under Section 28A of the Act is statutory duty of the authority concerned. Indeed, he is obliged to do so.

4. For what has been said above, the petition succeeds, and is allowed. The respondents, jointly and severally, shall take appropriate steps for enforcement of the order dated 31st March, 1993, (Annexure-2 to the petition), and ensure that the order is enforced in accordance with law within a period of six months, to be computed from today.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Bhurey vs State of U.P. and Another Same Subject Constitution Same Judge D.S. Sinha and ;Kamal Kishore, JJ. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A; Constitution of In...

Constitution