New Delhi,  An 80-year-old man has moved the Supreme Court seeking compensation of Rs 510 crore from the Uttar Pradesh government in connection with a waqf property.

The man, who claims to be legal heir of the property which was acquired by the state government, has challenged the Allahabad High Court passed on April 19 this year and also the Fatehpur District Magistrate's order, which declined to grant him the compensation.

The petitioner Alim Akhtar claimed that the compensation was due according to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The plea, filed through advocate Omprakash Parihar, said: "The petitioner is surviving legal heir, 80-year-old, had rightfully claimed the compensation of Rs 510 crore which was denied by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and hence the reliefs under the above writ petition ought to have been granted to the petitioner."

The plea contended that the high court order is blatantly erroneous as the issue involved before it was in respect of Waqf Alal Aulad property i.e. the property which continue to belong to the descendants for all time to come.

"The Allahabad High Court grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was the owner of the land in issue from 110 years ago. In fact, the petitioner's ancestor Mohammed Hasan was the owner of the property in issue in respect of which the certified copies of the Khasra and Khatawani were on record," it said.

The plea argued that compensation was denied, despite reports finding petitioner's father name in revenue records of the property concerned. "That the entry of the father of the petitioner, as well as Kabrastan, Takiya, and Waqf Alal Aulad is admittedly recorded in the revenue record and it is also admitted by the respondents that they are in possession on the several parts of the aforesaid property and are enjoying the same without awarding the single penny of compensation...", it added.

The petitioners said the court orders were contrary to the Sections 24(2) and 64 of Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, and that it is not correct for the state government to take the property of citizens illegally and arbitrarily without compensation.