Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Shri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to utilize the land plot no.35 Min excess than the acquired for the purpose of construction/ widening of N.H.-227A (Ram Janki Road) or to pay the compensation for extra land being utilized other than acquisition in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that adequate compensation has not been paid in the instant matter. He submit that instant matter does not relate to dispute of apportionment as no other claimant had ever turned up to agitate qua the petitioner's holding for actual disbursement. He submits that order impugned has been passed without application of mind and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

4. On the matter being taken up on 10.09.2025, the Court had proceeded to pass the following order:- "1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttara 2 WRIC No. 30272 of 2025 Bahuguna, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned order dated

6.8.2025 passed by respondent no.4 and for a direction to respondents not to utilise the excess land other than the acquired area of plot no.35 Min for the purpose of construction/ widening of N.H.-227A (Ram Janki Road) or to pay the compensation for extra land being utilised other than acquisition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order impugned has been passed in an arbitrary manner denying the claim/ representation of the petitioner on the ground that there is no legal partition between the shareholders of the disputed land. It is contended that the petitioner has purchased 0.0280 hect. of plot no.35M out of which

0.0149 hect. was acquired. Subsequently, during the survey it was found that a total area admeasuring 0.0240 hects. was subjected to use by the Authority for which compensation was asked by the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner had preferred Writ-C No.6316 of 2025 (Pratibha Kushwaha v. Union of India & Ors.) assailing the notice by which the tenure holders, who have accepted the compensation, were required to vacate the land and the superstructure and also required the remaining tenure holders to submit their documents and receive compensation so that the acquisition could be complete. In the said writ petition, instruction was produced by learned Standing Counsel stating that there is no actual partition between the co-sharers and the compensation is payable according to shares in the joint holding. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.4.2025 giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation and the same was directed to be decided after providing due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other co-sharers. In response to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has made representation to the authority concerned, which has been dismissed by the order impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even from bare perusal of the order impugned, it clearly transpires that the Authority had made spot inspection and on the basis of sale deed the petitioner has already constructed house and she is residing there. Out of her holding the area of 0.024 hect. is affected. He submits that apportionment dispute is there, wherein other claimants are raising some dispute over the holding, which is earmarked. In the survey it has also been found that the petitioner has raised construction over her land. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the property is not demarcated. It is submitted that as the petitioner's residence is there, she is asking for only compensation of her share. In the guise that the land is minjumla in nature, even though 3 WRIC No. 30272 of 2025 other tenure holders are not objecting, the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. This fact is also duly verified by the respondent authority while making spot inspection. He lastly submits that the adequate compensation is already provided by the Highways Authority to the Prescribed Authority for disbursement. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, which is fixed by Highways Authority.

5. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we find that once the property is duly identified as per the survey report and the petitioner is only seeking the compensation of her dwelling unit, then under what circumstances the rightful claim had been denied by the order impugned.

6. Let instructions in this regard be obtained by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel by the next date.

7. Put up this matter as fresh on 24.09.2025.

8. Suffice to say, in case, there is no other impediment, the compensation may be disbursed to the petitioner on or before the next date."

5. In response to the aforesaid order, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has placed the detailed instructions dated 22.09.2025 sent by the Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Deoria, which has already been taken on record on 15.10.2025. He submits that in response to the order dated

25.4.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.6316 of 2025, the Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Deoria had passed the order impugned, which is challenged in the instant writ petition. On the strength of instructions, he has also tried to impress the Court that there is no legal partition between the parties and various tenure holders are recorded in Arazi No.35, which is minzumla plot. In Arazi No.35 admeasuring 0.287 hect., the petitioner is having 0.0280 hect. land. Adequate compensation has been disbursed to all the tenure holders including the petitioner of their respective holding. In the instant matter, the petitioner has been disbursed Rs.8,68,923/- towards acquired land of 0.0149 hect. on 11.08.2025 and Rs.1,35,51,200/- towards constructed house and hand pump on 21.10.2024 and there is no outstanding to be paid to the petitioner. The survey has been carried out by the revenue officials, who are competent for this purpose, and on the basis of said survey the actual compensation has been disbursed in the year 2024 itself. He fairly submits that in case the petitioner is still 4 WRIC No. 30272 of 2025 aggrieved, said factual aspect cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction.

6. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel informed to the Court that for redressal of grievance of tenure holders, claiming certain right/title over their land, the State Government had issued detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which provides that in case the claimant files claim supported with requisite documents, the same would be considered by the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate compensation in the light of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 'Act 2013'). He submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of petitioner within a reasonable time and submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed in the instant matter, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation along with certified copy of the instant order before District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks. In the event, such representation is made, the District Level Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioner and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 27, 2025 SP/

1. Heard Shri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to utilize the land plot no.35 Min excess than the acquired for the purpose of construction/ widening of N.H.-227A (Ram Janki Road) or to pay the compensation for extra land being utilized other than acquisition in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that adequate compensation has not been paid in the instant matter. He submit that instant matter does not relate to dispute of apportionment as no other claimant had ever turned up to agitate qua the petitioner's holding for actual disbursement. He submits that order impugned has been passed without application of mind and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

4. On the matter being taken up on 10.09.2025, the Court had proceeded to pass the following order:- "1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttara 2 WRIC No. 30272 of 2025 Bahuguna, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned order dated

6.8.2025 passed by respondent no.4 and for a direction to respondents not to utilise the excess land other than the acquired area of plot no.35 Min for the purpose of construction/ widening of N.H.-227A (Ram Janki Road) or to pay the compensation for extra land being utilised other than acquisition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order impugned has been passed in an arbitrary manner denying the claim/ representation of the petitioner on the ground that there is no legal partition between the shareholders of the disputed land. It is contended that the petitioner has purchased 0.0280 hect. of plot no.35M out of which

0.0149 hect. was acquired. Subsequently, during the survey it was found that a total area admeasuring 0.0240 hects. was subjected to use by the Authority for which compensation was asked by the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner had preferred Writ-C No.6316 of 2025 (Pratibha Kushwaha v. Union of India & Ors.) assailing the notice by which the tenure holders, who have accepted the compensation, were required to vacate the land and the superstructure and also required the remaining tenure holders to submit their documents and receive compensation so that the acquisition could be complete. In the said writ petition, instruction was produced by learned Standing Counsel stating that there is no actual partition between the co-sharers and the compensation is payable according to shares in the joint holding. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.4.2025 giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation and the same was directed to be decided after providing due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other co-sharers. In response to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has made representation to the authority concerned, which has been dismissed by the order impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even from bare perusal of the order impugned, it clearly transpires that the Authority had made spot inspection and on the basis of sale deed the petitioner has already constructed house and she is residing there. Out of her holding the area of 0.024 hect. is affected. He submits that apportionment dispute is there, wherein other claimants are raising some dispute over the holding, which is earmarked. In the survey it has also been found that the petitioner has raised construction over her land. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the property is not demarcated. It is submitted that as the petitioner's residence is there, she is asking for only compensation of her share. In the guise that the land is minjumla in nature, even though 3 WRIC No. 30272 of 2025 other tenure holders are not objecting, the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. This fact is also duly verified by the respondent authority while making spot inspection. He lastly submits that the adequate compensation is already provided by the Highways Authority to the Prescribed Authority for disbursement. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, which is fixed by Highways Authority.

5. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we find that once the property is duly identified as per the survey report and the petitioner is only seeking the compensation of her dwelling unit, then under what circumstances the rightful claim had been denied by the order impugned.

6. Let instructions in this regard be obtained by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel by the next date.

7. Put up this matter as fresh on 24.09.2025.

8. Suffice to say, in case, there is no other impediment, the compensation may be disbursed to the petitioner on or before the next date."

5. In response to the aforesaid order, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has placed the detailed instructions dated 22.09.2025 sent by the Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Deoria, which has already been taken on record on 15.10.2025. He submits that in response to the order dated

25.4.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.6316 of 2025, the Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Deoria had passed the order impugned, which is challenged in the instant writ petition. On the strength of instructions, he has also tried to impress the Court that there is no legal partition between the parties and various tenure holders are recorded in Arazi No.35, which is minzumla plot. In Arazi No.35 admeasuring 0.287 hect., the petitioner is having 0.0280 hect. land. Adequate compensation has been disbursed to all the tenure holders including the petitioner of their respective holding. In the instant matter, the petitioner has been disbursed Rs.8,68,923/- towards acquired land of 0.0149 hect. on 11.08.2025 and Rs.1,35,51,200/- towards constructed house and hand pump on 21.10.2024 and there is no outstanding to be paid to the petitioner. The survey has been carried out by the revenue officials, who are competent for this purpose, and on the basis of said survey the actual compensation has been disbursed in the year 2024 itself. He fairly submits that in case the petitioner is still 4 WRIC No. 30272 of 2025 aggrieved, said factual aspect cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction.

6. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel informed to the Court that for redressal of grievance of tenure holders, claiming certain right/title over their land, the State Government had issued detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which provides that in case the claimant files claim supported with requisite documents, the same would be considered by the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate compensation in the light of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 'Act 2013'). He submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of petitioner within a reasonable time and submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed in the instant matter, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation along with certified copy of the instant order before District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks. In the event, such representation is made, the District Level Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioner and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 27, 2025 SP/