Tarannum Bano v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And

who appears on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite parties either to remove the illegal and forceful construction of RCC Road in respect of land gata No.569/0.0100 hectare & 570/0.0100 hectare which is situated at Revenue Village- Bariyapur, Pargana and Tehsil- Amethi, District- Amethi or make of its compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. II. Issue such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner. III. Allow the writ petition with cost."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.4716 of 2025 : Tarannum Bano vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others, where this Court had passed an order on 22.05.2025 directing the respondents to first complete the demarcation exercise and then construct 2 WRIC No. 10480 of 2025 the road. The application of the petitioner under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was decided only on 30.06.2025, whereas the road was constructed on 11.06.2025, in violation of this Court's order dated

22.05.2025.

4. We have gone through the order dated 22.05.2025, where the Court had observed as follows :- "Heard. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite parties not the construct illegal and forceful construction of RCC Road in respect of land gata No. 569/0.0100 hectare & 570/0.0100 hectare which is situated at Revenue Village - Bariyapur, Pargana and Tehsil - Amethi, District - Amethi till payment of its compensation as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 to the petitioner, in the interest of justice." Learned Counsel for the Zila Panchayat, Amethi, Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra says that the petitioner has already moved an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and in addition to it, he has instructions to inform the Court that if the proposed construction of road falls within the grove of the petitioner, then the Zila Panchayat will not undertake the said construction. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the opposite party no. 3, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Amethi, to complete the demarcation exercise within a period of six weeks. The proposed constructions shall obviously remain in abeyance for the said period to the extent of the land in dispute. Based on the result of the demarcation, further action can be taken. At this stage, we are informed that even the State authorities have asked the Zila Panchayat not to proceed with the proposed construction of road till demarcation proceedings are over. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. "

5. It is not disputed that the demarcation application was decided only on

30.06.2025.

6. However, it has been seriously disputed by the counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 that the road was constructed only in 2025. It has been stated that a link road was already in existence since 2010 and had 3 WRIC No. 10480 of 2025 been constructed under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme for gaon sabha in question. He has produced before this Court instructions from which it is evident that there was no connection between Gohaya-Tewaripur link road to Bariyapur link road. Therefore, a new road was proposed to be constructed under the MGNREGA scheme and the erstwhile owner of plot No.569 and 570, Chhedilal Verma S/o Vindhayadeen Verma had given his consent and an affidavit in this regard on 01.08.2010. A copy of the affidavit has been enclosed to the said instructions, from the perusal of which it is evident that the seller of the petitioner, Chhedilal Verma S/o Vindhayadeen Verma, resident of Village Bariyapur, Tehsil and District Sultanpur, stated that Gram Sabha Korari Giridharshah had proposed construction of a link road from Gohanva Road to Bariyapur in the financial year 2010-

2011. Construction was being done on one side of Gata No.569 and 570 and a portion of these plots was being affected. The then tenure-holder, Chhedilal Verma, had given his consent for construction of such road and also stated in his affidavit that in case he sold the land to some other person in future, he would ensure not to sell the portion of land affected by the link road. The instructions are kept on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, however, Chhedilal Verma sold the entire land of plot nos.569 and 570 to the petitioner without indicating that he had already consented to construction of a road through portions of the said plots. The sale deed in question was executed on 31.08.2015.

8. Having gone through the papers on record, we find that there is a site map filed at page 42 of the paper book, from which it is evident that on the eastern side of plot Nos.570 and 569 there exists plot No.574. Some portion of plot Nos.570 and 569, namely, 3m x 32m was taken from these plots and almost the same length and width in strip was taken on the western side of plot No.574. The total area affected by the construction of the link road comes to around 96 sq. m., i.e., 32m x 3 m.

9. It is evident that the seller of the petitioner did not state the correct facts while executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He did not indicate that he had given such consent on affidavit to the respondents on

01.08.2010. 4 WRIC No. 10480 of 2025

10. This petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner to move the appropriate forum for recovery of the amount charged in excess by the seller of the petitioner, i.e., Chhedilal Verma S/o Vindhayadeen Verma, for not disclosing the correct facts while executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 3, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

who appears on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite parties either to remove the illegal and forceful construction of RCC Road in respect of land gata No.569/0.0100 hectare & 570/0.0100 hectare which is situated at Revenue Village- Bariyapur, Pargana and Tehsil- Amethi, District- Amethi or make of its compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. II. Issue such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner. III. Allow the writ petition with cost."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.4716 of 2025 : Tarannum Bano vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others, where this Court had passed an order on 22.05.2025 directing the respondents to first complete the demarcation exercise and then construct 2 WRIC No. 10480 of 2025 the road. The application of the petitioner under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was decided only on 30.06.2025, whereas the road was constructed on 11.06.2025, in violation of this Court's order dated

22.05.2025.

4. We have gone through the order dated 22.05.2025, where the Court had observed as follows :- "Heard. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite parties not the construct illegal and forceful construction of RCC Road in respect of land gata No. 569/0.0100 hectare & 570/0.0100 hectare which is situated at Revenue Village - Bariyapur, Pargana and Tehsil - Amethi, District - Amethi till payment of its compensation as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 to the petitioner, in the interest of justice." Learned Counsel for the Zila Panchayat, Amethi, Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra says that the petitioner has already moved an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and in addition to it, he has instructions to inform the Court that if the proposed construction of road falls within the grove of the petitioner, then the Zila Panchayat will not undertake the said construction. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the opposite party no. 3, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Amethi, to complete the demarcation exercise within a period of six weeks. The proposed constructions shall obviously remain in abeyance for the said period to the extent of the land in dispute. Based on the result of the demarcation, further action can be taken. At this stage, we are informed that even the State authorities have asked the Zila Panchayat not to proceed with the proposed construction of road till demarcation proceedings are over. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. "

5. It is not disputed that the demarcation application was decided only on

30.06.2025.

6. However, it has been seriously disputed by the counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 that the road was constructed only in 2025. It has been stated that a link road was already in existence since 2010 and had 3 WRIC No. 10480 of 2025 been constructed under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme for gaon sabha in question. He has produced before this Court instructions from which it is evident that there was no connection between Gohaya-Tewaripur link road to Bariyapur link road. Therefore, a new road was proposed to be constructed under the MGNREGA scheme and the erstwhile owner of plot No.569 and 570, Chhedilal Verma S/o Vindhayadeen Verma had given his consent and an affidavit in this regard on 01.08.2010. A copy of the affidavit has been enclosed to the said instructions, from the perusal of which it is evident that the seller of the petitioner, Chhedilal Verma S/o Vindhayadeen Verma, resident of Village Bariyapur, Tehsil and District Sultanpur, stated that Gram Sabha Korari Giridharshah had proposed construction of a link road from Gohanva Road to Bariyapur in the financial year 2010-

2011. Construction was being done on one side of Gata No.569 and 570 and a portion of these plots was being affected. The then tenure-holder, Chhedilal Verma, had given his consent for construction of such road and also stated in his affidavit that in case he sold the land to some other person in future, he would ensure not to sell the portion of land affected by the link road. The instructions are kept on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, however, Chhedilal Verma sold the entire land of plot nos.569 and 570 to the petitioner without indicating that he had already consented to construction of a road through portions of the said plots. The sale deed in question was executed on 31.08.2015.

8. Having gone through the papers on record, we find that there is a site map filed at page 42 of the paper book, from which it is evident that on the eastern side of plot Nos.570 and 569 there exists plot No.574. Some portion of plot Nos.570 and 569, namely, 3m x 32m was taken from these plots and almost the same length and width in strip was taken on the western side of plot No.574. The total area affected by the construction of the link road comes to around 96 sq. m., i.e., 32m x 3 m.

9. It is evident that the seller of the petitioner did not state the correct facts while executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He did not indicate that he had given such consent on affidavit to the respondents on

01.08.2010. 4 WRIC No. 10480 of 2025

10. This petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner to move the appropriate forum for recovery of the amount charged in excess by the seller of the petitioner, i.e., Chhedilal Verma S/o Vindhayadeen Verma, for not disclosing the correct facts while executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 3, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench