Om Prakash alias Pappu and another v. Union Of India And

Kumar Srivastava HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Kartikaya Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for Union of India (respondent no.1), Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India (respondent nos.2, 3 and 4), and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India with request to issue direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay the compensation for the remaining 360 square meters of land of the petitioners situated at Village Dhaurera, Pargana & District Auraiya, acquired by National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for widening/four-laning of Etawah-Chakeri stretch by invoking the provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, Act, 2013).

3. The matter was taken up on on 23.07.2025 and on the said date, the Court had proceeded to pass following order:- "1. Heard Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of 2 WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 India, and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to release compensation for the remaining 360 square meters of land situated in Village Dhaurera, Pargana and District Auraiya, which is stated to have been acquired by the N.H.A.I. for the purpose of widening and four-laning of the Etawah?Chakeri stretch, in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a total of 970 square meters of land belonging to the petitioners was utilized by N.H.A.I. under the aforementioned project pursuant to a mutual agreement. However, the execution of the sale deed was deferred for the remaining 360 square meters due to an objection raised by one Shri Barnam Singh, who had filed Original Suit No. 44 of 2007 (Barnam Singh v. Pratap Narayan) for specific performance on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell. The said objection was considered by the Project Manager of N.H.A.I., as noted in the communication dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).

4. It is further submitted that the aforesaid suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.03.2008, and as per the statement made at the Bar, no restoration application has been filed till date. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no subsisting legal impediment to the execution of the sale deed or disbursement of compensation. The petitioners have no objection to the execution of the sale deed in favour of N.H.A.I. and seek release of compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

5. Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for N.H.A.I., submits that the complete records concerning the acquisition and utilization of the remaining 360 square meters of land are currently unavailable at the office. Therefore, the respondents are unable to confirm whether the said land has been utilized or is required for the project. However, she fairly submits that a direction may be issued to the concerned Revenue Authorities to carry out a joint measurement of the land in question, in the presence of N.H.A.I. officials, so that factual clarity may be attained and further appropriate action may follow, subject to the absence of any legal impediment.

6. Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has also make 3 WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 same request and submits that the State has no objection if N.H.A.I. seeks the assistance of the District Authorities for the purpose of undertaking the necessary measurement.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of the communication dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure-5), the controversy at this stage appears to be confined to the measurement and compensation of 360 square meters of land. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Auraiya, is directed to depute competent Revenue Officials to conduct an accurate measurement of the land in question, in the presence of N.H.A.I. officials and the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed within two weeks from today.

8. Put up this case as fresh on 12.08.2025.

9. In the meantime, it is expected that the measurement of the disputed land shall be duly undertaken as directed, and a report to that effect shall be submitted before this Court through Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on or before the next date of listing."

4. Today, when the matter is taken up, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed detailed instructions dated

08.08.2025 sent by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Auraiya, which is taken on record. In the aforesaid instruction, it has been indicated that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23.07.2025, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Auraiya vide order dated 07.08.2025 had constituted a Five Member Team under the Chairmanship of the Tehsildar, Auraiya, which conducted the measurement of the aforesaid Gata No.242 on 07.08.2025 in presence of the petitioners and the authorised representative of the NHAI. As per report of the Tehsildar, the petitioner is recorded bhumidhar of Gata No.242 area 0.247 hectare situated in revenue village Dhaurera. The petitioners' 0.2079 hectare land is affected from the point of NH-19 to Khutti situated on 30 meters length, out of which the petitioners have been paid compensation of 0.1730 hectare land. The petitioners' 0.0391 hectare land remains from the point of NH-19 to 30 meters Khutti and the same is in possession of the petitioners. The Competent Authority further stated that as per aforesaid report, the petitioners have been paid the 4 WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 compensation of 0.1730 hectrare land of Gata No.242 but according to the Khutti installed by the NHAI, petitioners' 0.0349 hectare land has been affected. The construction has been made from the middle of NH-19 to

17.5 meter and thereafter, the land is lying vacant.

5. Learned Additional 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 Act, 2013. He submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of petitioners within a reasonable time and submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

6. The aforesaid survey report is resisted by Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing for NHAI on the premise that she has received detailed instructions and the authority is inclined to file an objection to the said report.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the objection taken by learned counsel for NHAI against the earlier survey report, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to the District Magistrate, Auraiya to constitute a High Powered Committee consisting of officials, who were not part of the earlier demarcation, which has been carried out in response to the previous order dated 23.07.2025 and the High Powered Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioners and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within three months, thereafter. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 13, 2025 RKP RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kumar Srivastava HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Kartikaya Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for Union of India (respondent no.1), Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India (respondent nos.2, 3 and 4), and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India with request to issue direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay the compensation for the remaining 360 square meters of land of the petitioners situated at Village Dhaurera, Pargana & District Auraiya, acquired by National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for widening/four-laning of Etawah-Chakeri stretch by invoking the provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, Act, 2013).

3. The matter was taken up on on 23.07.2025 and on the said date, the Court had proceeded to pass following order:- "1. Heard Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of 2 WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 India, and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to release compensation for the remaining 360 square meters of land situated in Village Dhaurera, Pargana and District Auraiya, which is stated to have been acquired by the N.H.A.I. for the purpose of widening and four-laning of the Etawah?Chakeri stretch, in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a total of 970 square meters of land belonging to the petitioners was utilized by N.H.A.I. under the aforementioned project pursuant to a mutual agreement. However, the execution of the sale deed was deferred for the remaining 360 square meters due to an objection raised by one Shri Barnam Singh, who had filed Original Suit No. 44 of 2007 (Barnam Singh v. Pratap Narayan) for specific performance on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell. The said objection was considered by the Project Manager of N.H.A.I., as noted in the communication dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).

4. It is further submitted that the aforesaid suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.03.2008, and as per the statement made at the Bar, no restoration application has been filed till date. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no subsisting legal impediment to the execution of the sale deed or disbursement of compensation. The petitioners have no objection to the execution of the sale deed in favour of N.H.A.I. and seek release of compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

5. Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for N.H.A.I., submits that the complete records concerning the acquisition and utilization of the remaining 360 square meters of land are currently unavailable at the office. Therefore, the respondents are unable to confirm whether the said land has been utilized or is required for the project. However, she fairly submits that a direction may be issued to the concerned Revenue Authorities to carry out a joint measurement of the land in question, in the presence of N.H.A.I. officials, so that factual clarity may be attained and further appropriate action may follow, subject to the absence of any legal impediment.

6. Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has also make 3 WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 same request and submits that the State has no objection if N.H.A.I. seeks the assistance of the District Authorities for the purpose of undertaking the necessary measurement.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of the communication dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure-5), the controversy at this stage appears to be confined to the measurement and compensation of 360 square meters of land. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Auraiya, is directed to depute competent Revenue Officials to conduct an accurate measurement of the land in question, in the presence of N.H.A.I. officials and the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed within two weeks from today.

8. Put up this case as fresh on 12.08.2025.

9. In the meantime, it is expected that the measurement of the disputed land shall be duly undertaken as directed, and a report to that effect shall be submitted before this Court through Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on or before the next date of listing."

4. Today, when the matter is taken up, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed detailed instructions dated

08.08.2025 sent by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Auraiya, which is taken on record. In the aforesaid instruction, it has been indicated that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23.07.2025, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Auraiya vide order dated 07.08.2025 had constituted a Five Member Team under the Chairmanship of the Tehsildar, Auraiya, which conducted the measurement of the aforesaid Gata No.242 on 07.08.2025 in presence of the petitioners and the authorised representative of the NHAI. As per report of the Tehsildar, the petitioner is recorded bhumidhar of Gata No.242 area 0.247 hectare situated in revenue village Dhaurera. The petitioners' 0.2079 hectare land is affected from the point of NH-19 to Khutti situated on 30 meters length, out of which the petitioners have been paid compensation of 0.1730 hectare land. The petitioners' 0.0391 hectare land remains from the point of NH-19 to 30 meters Khutti and the same is in possession of the petitioners. The Competent Authority further stated that as per aforesaid report, the petitioners have been paid the 4 WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 compensation of 0.1730 hectrare land of Gata No.242 but according to the Khutti installed by the NHAI, petitioners' 0.0349 hectare land has been affected. The construction has been made from the middle of NH-19 to

17.5 meter and thereafter, the land is lying vacant.

5. Learned Additional 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 Act, 2013. He submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of petitioners within a reasonable time and submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

6. The aforesaid survey report is resisted by Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing for NHAI on the premise that she has received detailed instructions and the authority is inclined to file an objection to the said report.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the objection taken by learned counsel for NHAI against the earlier survey report, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to the District Magistrate, Auraiya to constitute a High Powered Committee consisting of officials, who were not part of the earlier demarcation, which has been carried out in response to the previous order dated 23.07.2025 and the High Powered Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioners and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within three months, thereafter. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 13, 2025 RKP RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad