Ramrati v. State of U.P. & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of by the

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for National Highway Authority of India (in short "Authority").

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, District Magistrate/ Arbitrator, Ghazipur District Ghazipur to recalculate the valuation of house of petitioner situated at Plot No.174/1 situated at Village Rajapur Pargana Pachotar Tehsil and District Ghazipur as commercial accommodation in place of agricultural land. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3, Competent Authority/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance/ Revenue), Ghaziur District Ghazipur to ensure the payment of rest compensation amount after recalculation of valuation of house of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an arbitrary manner an award was made giving compensation to the petitioner on lower side. Such situation impelled the petitioner to earlier invoke the writ jurisdiction by preferring Writ-C No.16669 of 2019 (Nanhki @ Ramrati v. State of U.P. & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on

23.07.2019 with following observations:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead District Magistrate/Arbitrator, 2 WRIC No. 43389 of 2025 District-Ghazipur as respondent no.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Neeraj Dube, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. It appears from the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents appended thereto that the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him in lieu of acquisition of his Plot No. 174/1 situated at Village-Rajapur, Pargana-Pachotar, Tehsil and District-Ghazipur. Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956) provides that if the amount determined by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the Act is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on application by either of the parties be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. It has been submitted by Sri Neeraj Dube, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 that the District Magistrate, Ghazipur has been appointed as an Arbitrator by the Central Government under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur for determination of compensation alongwith certified copy of this order. In case such an application for determination of compensation is filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur strictly in accordance with law within a further period of three months."

4. In response to the leave accorded by the Writ Court, the petitioner had sent an application through registered post on 24.08.2019 (Annexure No.4). Inspite of running from pillar to post, once the aforesaid Writ Court order was not complied with, the petitioner was compelled to prefer Contempt Application (Civil) No.2385 of 2020 (Nanhki @ Ramrati v. Om Prakash Arya, D.M.), which was disposed of vide order dated 26.8.2020 granting three months' further time to comply with the Writ Court order dated

23.07.2019. Once the Writ Court order was again not complied with within the stipulated period fixed by the Contempt Court, the petitioner was again 3 WRIC No. 43389 of 2025 compelled to take shelter of contempt proceeding by way of preferring second Contempt Application (Civil) No.5511 of 2025 (Nanhki @ Ramrati v. Sri Avinash Kumar, District Magistrate/ Arbitrator). The said contempt application was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2025 with following observations:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The present contempt application has been filed pleading willful disobedience of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 16669 of 2019.

3. Being confronted by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants could not demonstrate as to how contempt is made out against the order of Writ Court. Further, present application is barred by the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits that in view of the leave accorded by the Writ Court, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 3G (5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 (in short Act, 1956"). Admittedly, the said application was sent through registered post, the receipt of the same is annexed as Annexure No.4. As such it cannot be disputed that in the light of the leave accorded by the Writ Court the petitioner has taken remedial measures and approached to the alternative forum i.e. the Arbitrator. Even though there was non-compliance of the order of Writ Court, indulgence was accorded by the Contempt Court vide order dated 26.08.2020 in Contempt Application (Civil) No.2385 of

2020. He submits that while rejecting the second Contempt Application in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contempt Court had not noticed the order on previous contempt application.

6. In the facts and circumstances, we find it writ large that inspite of indulgence accorded by the Writ Court as well as earlier Contempt Court, the proceeding has not been finalised. We further find that under the present facts and circumstances, the claim set up by the petitioner cannot be negated merely on the ground of limitation.

7. Let the respondents apprise as to under what circumstances, inspite of application moved by the petitioner in the light of the Writ Court order, the 4 WRIC No. 43389 of 2025 same has not been processed till date.

8. On the request of learned counsel for the respondents, put up this matter as fresh on 18.12.2025. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) December 10, 2025 SP/

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for National Highway Authority of India (in short "Authority").

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, District Magistrate/ Arbitrator, Ghazipur District Ghazipur to recalculate the valuation of house of petitioner situated at Plot No.174/1 situated at Village Rajapur Pargana Pachotar Tehsil and District Ghazipur as commercial accommodation in place of agricultural land. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3, Competent Authority/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance/ Revenue), Ghaziur District Ghazipur to ensure the payment of rest compensation amount after recalculation of valuation of house of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an arbitrary manner an award was made giving compensation to the petitioner on lower side. Such situation impelled the petitioner to earlier invoke the writ jurisdiction by preferring Writ-C No.16669 of 2019 (Nanhki @ Ramrati v. State of U.P. & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on

23.07.2019 with following observations:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead District Magistrate/Arbitrator, 2 WRIC No. 43389 of 2025 District-Ghazipur as respondent no.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Neeraj Dube, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. It appears from the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents appended thereto that the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him in lieu of acquisition of his Plot No. 174/1 situated at Village-Rajapur, Pargana-Pachotar, Tehsil and District-Ghazipur. Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956) provides that if the amount determined by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the Act is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on application by either of the parties be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. It has been submitted by Sri Neeraj Dube, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 that the District Magistrate, Ghazipur has been appointed as an Arbitrator by the Central Government under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur for determination of compensation alongwith certified copy of this order. In case such an application for determination of compensation is filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur strictly in accordance with law within a further period of three months."

4. In response to the leave accorded by the Writ Court, the petitioner had sent an application through registered post on 24.08.2019 (Annexure No.4). Inspite of running from pillar to post, once the aforesaid Writ Court order was not complied with, the petitioner was compelled to prefer Contempt Application (Civil) No.2385 of 2020 (Nanhki @ Ramrati v. Om Prakash Arya, D.M.), which was disposed of vide order dated 26.8.2020 granting three months' further time to comply with the Writ Court order dated

23.07.2019. Once the Writ Court order was again not complied with within the stipulated period fixed by the Contempt Court, the petitioner was again 3 WRIC No. 43389 of 2025 compelled to take shelter of contempt proceeding by way of preferring second Contempt Application (Civil) No.5511 of 2025 (Nanhki @ Ramrati v. Sri Avinash Kumar, District Magistrate/ Arbitrator). The said contempt application was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2025 with following observations:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The present contempt application has been filed pleading willful disobedience of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 16669 of 2019.

3. Being confronted by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants could not demonstrate as to how contempt is made out against the order of Writ Court. Further, present application is barred by the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits that in view of the leave accorded by the Writ Court, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 3G (5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 (in short Act, 1956"). Admittedly, the said application was sent through registered post, the receipt of the same is annexed as Annexure No.4. As such it cannot be disputed that in the light of the leave accorded by the Writ Court the petitioner has taken remedial measures and approached to the alternative forum i.e. the Arbitrator. Even though there was non-compliance of the order of Writ Court, indulgence was accorded by the Contempt Court vide order dated 26.08.2020 in Contempt Application (Civil) No.2385 of

2020. He submits that while rejecting the second Contempt Application in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contempt Court had not noticed the order on previous contempt application.

6. In the facts and circumstances, we find it writ large that inspite of indulgence accorded by the Writ Court as well as earlier Contempt Court, the proceeding has not been finalised. We further find that under the present facts and circumstances, the claim set up by the petitioner cannot be negated merely on the ground of limitation.

7. Let the respondents apprise as to under what circumstances, inspite of application moved by the petitioner in the light of the Writ Court order, the 4 WRIC No. 43389 of 2025 same has not been processed till date.

8. On the request of learned counsel for the respondents, put up this matter as fresh on 18.12.2025. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) December 10, 2025 SP/