Mahendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Mahendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 16, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474096

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/474096
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Ravi S. Dhavan and ;V.P. Goel, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 16, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 9901 of 1999
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

Property - compensation of land acquisition - Section 28A (as inserted by 1984 amendment) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - compensation received by cheque - proceeding ended during life time of father - sons want to redetermine the compensation after father died - only father can file such the application - sons can ...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahendra Kumar and Others

Advocate D.N. Yadav, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A
Reported In: 1999(2)AWC1395

Excerpt

property - compensation of land acquisition - section 28a (as inserted by 1984 amendment) of land acquisition act, 1894 - compensation received by cheque - proceeding ended during life time of father - sons want to redetermine the compensation after father died - only father can file such the application - sons can not reagitate the settled matter. - - 1. the petitioners seem to have become wiser after the event when amendments were made in 1984, to the land acquisition act, 1894. these amendments made provisions for certa'in additional payment like solatium and an increase in the rate of interest, paid along with compensation.ravi s. dhavart and v. p. goel, jj.1. the petitioners seem to have become wiser after the event when amendments were made in 1984, to the land acquisition act, 1894. these amendments made provisions for certa'in additional payment like solatium and an increase in the rate of interest, paid along with compensation. about 15 years after amendments to the act, the petitioners has an after thought that they could move an application under section 28a, itself a product of amendment and seek additional payment.2. the petitioners, three sons of late bhulai yadav, claim that they have no knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings. the plea of the petitioners is itself inequitable and unclean. the father of the petitioners received an account payee cheque, dated 15 march, 1983 as compensation. on an enquiry from the court, it was intimated that the petitioners father died in december, 1997. so, any person who may have a locus standi to move an application under section 28a, and contend that the compensation be redetermined was the petitioners' father.3. the petitioners are in no position to say that they have no knowledge of the land acquisition proceedings or the award in pursuance of which their fatherreceived compensation by an account payee cheque. after this, the chapter closed. the petitioners cannot reagitate these matters finally settled with their father sixteen years ago.4. the writ petition was ill-advised and otherwise misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Full Judgment

Ravi S. Dhavart and V. P. Goel, JJ.

1. The petitioners seem to have become wiser after the event when amendments were made in 1984, to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These amendments made provisions for certa'in additional payment like solatium and an increase in the rate of interest, paid along with compensation. About 15 years after amendments to the Act, the petitioners has an after thought that they could move an application under Section 28A, itself a product of amendment and seek additional payment.

2. The petitioners, three sons of late Bhulai Yadav, claim that they have no knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings. The plea of the petitioners is itself inequitable and unclean. The father of the petitioners received an account payee cheque, dated 15 March, 1983 as compensation. On an enquiry from the Court, it was intimated that the petitioners father died in December, 1997. So, any person who may have a locus standi to move an application under Section 28A, and contend that the compensation be redetermined was the petitioners' father.

3. The petitioners are in no position to say that they have no knowledge of the land acquisition proceedings or the award in pursuance of which their fatherreceived compensation by an account payee cheque. After this, the chapter closed. The petitioners cannot reagitate these matters finally settled with their father sixteen years ago.

4. The writ petition was ill-advised and otherwise misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Mahendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge Ravi S. Dhavan and ;V.P. Goel, JJ. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A

Property