Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Balram Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Balram Yadav and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 11, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/460660

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 29831 of 1992
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Property - requisition - Sections 3 and 9 of U.P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948 - where any land requisitioned by Government - compensation shall be paid to the party - compensation shall also be paid for any damage done during period of requisition - if there is any dispute regarding compensati...

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Uttar Pradesh Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948 - Sections 3 and 9

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balram Yadav and Others

Advocate Narsingh Dixit, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Uttar Pradesh Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948 - Sections 3 and 9
Reported In
1999(1)AWC673

Excerpt

property - requisition - sections 3 and 9 of u.p. rural development (requisition of land) act, 1948 - where any land requisitioned by government - compensation shall be paid to the party - compensation shall also be paid for any damage done during period of requisition - if there is any dispute regarding compensation petitioner should approach requisitioning authority. - - the petitioners would be better advised to approach the requisitioning authority and putforth before him their claim for compensation for requisition and damage......claiming compensation to appear before him on a specified date. the compensation officer may, after due enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, determine the amount of compensation.3. from the pleadings contained in the writ petition, it is not clear whether the requisitioning authority and the petitioners disagreed upon the question of compensation or, following the disagreement, if any, the requisitioning authority made any reference to the compensation officer. under these circumstances, it is not possible for this court to come to the rescue of the petitioners. the petitioners would be better advised to approach the requisitioning authority and putforth before him their claim for compensation for requisition and damage. in case, no agreement between them and the requisitioning authority is arrived at. the petitioners may require the requisitioning authority to refer the matter to the compensation officer in accordance with the provision of section 9 of the act.4. subject to the observations made above, the petition shall stand disposed of finally. the interim order/orders, stands vacated.

Full Judgment

D.S. Sinha, J.

1. Heard Sri Nar Singh Dixit. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel, representing the respondents. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been awarded any compensation and damages in lieu of requisition of their land and damage done to the standing crop thereon under the provisions of U. P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act. 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. Where any land is requisitioned under Section 3 of the Act, there shall be paid to every person interested such compensation as may be agreed upon in writing between the person and the Requisitioning Authority in respect of the requisition of his land, and any damage done during the period of requisition to such land other thanthat which may have been sustained by natural causes. If no agreement, as is envisaged in Section 3 of the Act, is arrived at for such compensation, the Requisitioning Authority is obliged to refer the mailer with his recommendation as to the amount of compensation and the reasons therefor to the Compensation Officer and direct the person claiming compensation to appear before him on a specified date. The Compensation Officer may, after due enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, determine the amount of compensation.

3. From the pleadings contained in the writ petition, it is not clear whether the Requisitioning Authority and the petitioners disagreed upon the question of compensation or, following the disagreement, if any, the Requisitioning Authority made any reference to the Compensation Officer. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to come to the rescue of the petitioners. The petitioners would be better advised to approach the Requisitioning Authority and putforth before him their claim for compensation for requisition and damage. In case, no agreement between them and the Requisitioning Authority is arrived at. the petitioners may require the Requisitioning Authority to refer the matter to the Compensation Officer in accordance with the provision of Section 9 of the Act.

4. Subject to the observations made above, the petition shall stand disposed of finally. The interim order/orders, stands vacated.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial