Smt. Rinki and others v. Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, contained as Annexure No

1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Madhukar Ojha, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.3- Lucknow Development Authority, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Jalaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and Shri Madhukar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the A.D.M. Land Acquisition, Nagar Mahapalika-I, Lucknow, in Case No.1861 of 2025 In Re: Smt. Rinki and others Versus Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/calculation of amount of compensation dated 05.09.2024 issued by SLO contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties No.1 to send the reference under 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (iv) Issue any other such writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court 2 WRIC No. 11652 of 2025 deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (v) To award the cost of petition."

4. It is the case of the petitioners that their land was illegally taken away by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) for development of Sitapur Road Nagar Prasar Yojna without there being any acquisition and without giving compensation. Such possession of the land of the petitioners was taken in 1981. Thereafter, LDA leased the property to St. Antony Inter College and the said College is running on the land of the petitioners. The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest Kusum, Chandrapal (now deceased) and Vijay (now deceased) had already been declared bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land which was initially allotted to them for agricultural purposes by the Gaon Sabha; such declaration was made in 1997.

5. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court, i.e., Writ-C No.2454 of 2014: Kusum and others vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue and 2 others, which was allowed on 16.04.2024 by observing that the land of the petitioners had been taken away without acquisition under the presumption that it was navin parti land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and ignoring the fact that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had already been declared bhumidhar with transferable rights in 1997.

6. The Court had directed that since the petitioners had been deprived of their property for no fault of theirs, compensation be given by the LDA to the petitioners on the basis of evaluation done as per the New Act of

2013. Such compensation was to be paid by the LDA to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

7. After such order was passed on 16.04.2024, the respondents did not comply with the same and a contempt petition i.e. Contempt Application (Civil) No.3434 of 2024 was filed. It is only thereafter that respondent No.5 calculated the amount of compensation by an order dated

05.09.2024. A compliance affidavit was filed on 14.01.2025 by the LDA enclosing therewith a copy of the order passed by respondent No.5, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow (SLO) dated 05.09.2024. The 3 WRIC No. 11652 of 2025 petitioners came to know later on that the compensation as calculated by the SLO was inadequate and against the provisions of the New Act, 2013.

8. The petitioners filed objections to the letter/order dated 05.09.2024 on

23.09.2024 and during the course of hearing of the Contempt Application (Civil) No.3434 of 2024, it was also pointed out before this Court that the compensation was inadequate.

9. The contempt petition was disposed of on 12.02.2025 on the assurance given by the counsel for the LDA that they had complied with this Court's order dated 16.04.2024. The contempt judge observed that liberty is available to the petitioners to pray for enhancement of compensation fixed by SLO before the appropriate forum.

10. Even after the contempt petition was disposed of, the LDA did not give compensation to the petitioners and the petitioners filed another contempt petition bearing No.2025 of 2025 before this Court. After filing of the second contempt petition, the LDA got the sale deed registered with regard to the land of the petitioners on 08.08.2025. The registered sale deed was actually executed on 08.08.2025. Thereafter, on

27.08.2025, the second contempt petition i.e. Contempt Application (Civil) No.2025 of 2025 was dismissed as infructuous. The Court observed that the applicants/petitioners are always at liberty to avail the remedy as may be permissible in law, for which no liberty is required to be granted by the contempt Court.

11. Thereafter, the order dated 03.11.2025 has been passed by the ADM, Land Acquisition, Nagar Mahapalika Parishad, Lucknow (respondent No.4), wherein it has been mentioned that after the sale deed was executed on 08.08.2025 for compensation amount of Rs.1,41,96,000/-, no reference for enhancement is maintainable. The respondent No.4 has also observed that since land acquisition has not been done by his office, such reference cannot be made as prayed for.

12. Hence, this petition has been filed.

13. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court while sitting in contempt jurisdiction has repeatedly given 4 WRIC No. 11652 of 2025 opportunity to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for enhancement of compensation.

14. Now the petitioners have approached this Court for enhancement of their compensation and for quashing of the order dated 05.09.2024 by which such compensation has been determined.

15. Learned counsel for the LDA has pointed out that the petitioners, having sold the land to LDA through a registered sale deed, can have such registered document annulled only under the Specific Relief Act before the civil court. A reference petition for enhancement of compensation is not maintainable before the respondent Nos.4 or 5 as acquisition, in the strict terms, has not been done. The sale deed was executed after the writ petition of the petitioners was allowed. They could have refused to execute such sale deed, which is a duly registered document, and before execution, they could have approached this Court.

16. We find substance in the arguments made by the learned counsel for the LDA.

17. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil court and also claim damages for illegal possession of the property as adjudicated by this Court in its order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Writ-C No.2454 of 2014, since 1982, by the LDA. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) December 8, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Madhukar Ojha, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.3- Lucknow Development Authority, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Jalaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and Shri Madhukar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the A.D.M. Land Acquisition, Nagar Mahapalika-I, Lucknow, in Case No.1861 of 2025 In Re: Smt. Rinki and others Versus Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/calculation of amount of compensation dated 05.09.2024 issued by SLO contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties No.1 to send the reference under 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (iv) Issue any other such writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court 2 WRIC No. 11652 of 2025 deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (v) To award the cost of petition."

4. It is the case of the petitioners that their land was illegally taken away by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) for development of Sitapur Road Nagar Prasar Yojna without there being any acquisition and without giving compensation. Such possession of the land of the petitioners was taken in 1981. Thereafter, LDA leased the property to St. Antony Inter College and the said College is running on the land of the petitioners. The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest Kusum, Chandrapal (now deceased) and Vijay (now deceased) had already been declared bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land which was initially allotted to them for agricultural purposes by the Gaon Sabha; such declaration was made in 1997.

5. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court, i.e., Writ-C No.2454 of 2014: Kusum and others vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue and 2 others, which was allowed on 16.04.2024 by observing that the land of the petitioners had been taken away without acquisition under the presumption that it was navin parti land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and ignoring the fact that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had already been declared bhumidhar with transferable rights in 1997.

6. The Court had directed that since the petitioners had been deprived of their property for no fault of theirs, compensation be given by the LDA to the petitioners on the basis of evaluation done as per the New Act of

2013. Such compensation was to be paid by the LDA to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

7. After such order was passed on 16.04.2024, the respondents did not comply with the same and a contempt petition i.e. Contempt Application (Civil) No.3434 of 2024 was filed. It is only thereafter that respondent No.5 calculated the amount of compensation by an order dated

05.09.2024. A compliance affidavit was filed on 14.01.2025 by the LDA enclosing therewith a copy of the order passed by respondent No.5, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow (SLO) dated 05.09.2024. The 3 WRIC No. 11652 of 2025 petitioners came to know later on that the compensation as calculated by the SLO was inadequate and against the provisions of the New Act, 2013.

8. The petitioners filed objections to the letter/order dated 05.09.2024 on

23.09.2024 and during the course of hearing of the Contempt Application (Civil) No.3434 of 2024, it was also pointed out before this Court that the compensation was inadequate.

9. The contempt petition was disposed of on 12.02.2025 on the assurance given by the counsel for the LDA that they had complied with this Court's order dated 16.04.2024. The contempt judge observed that liberty is available to the petitioners to pray for enhancement of compensation fixed by SLO before the appropriate forum.

10. Even after the contempt petition was disposed of, the LDA did not give compensation to the petitioners and the petitioners filed another contempt petition bearing No.2025 of 2025 before this Court. After filing of the second contempt petition, the LDA got the sale deed registered with regard to the land of the petitioners on 08.08.2025. The registered sale deed was actually executed on 08.08.2025. Thereafter, on

27.08.2025, the second contempt petition i.e. Contempt Application (Civil) No.2025 of 2025 was dismissed as infructuous. The Court observed that the applicants/petitioners are always at liberty to avail the remedy as may be permissible in law, for which no liberty is required to be granted by the contempt Court.

11. Thereafter, the order dated 03.11.2025 has been passed by the ADM, Land Acquisition, Nagar Mahapalika Parishad, Lucknow (respondent No.4), wherein it has been mentioned that after the sale deed was executed on 08.08.2025 for compensation amount of Rs.1,41,96,000/-, no reference for enhancement is maintainable. The respondent No.4 has also observed that since land acquisition has not been done by his office, such reference cannot be made as prayed for.

12. Hence, this petition has been filed.

13. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court while sitting in contempt jurisdiction has repeatedly given 4 WRIC No. 11652 of 2025 opportunity to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for enhancement of compensation.

14. Now the petitioners have approached this Court for enhancement of their compensation and for quashing of the order dated 05.09.2024 by which such compensation has been determined.

15. Learned counsel for the LDA has pointed out that the petitioners, having sold the land to LDA through a registered sale deed, can have such registered document annulled only under the Specific Relief Act before the civil court. A reference petition for enhancement of compensation is not maintainable before the respondent Nos.4 or 5 as acquisition, in the strict terms, has not been done. The sale deed was executed after the writ petition of the petitioners was allowed. They could have refused to execute such sale deed, which is a duly registered document, and before execution, they could have approached this Court.

16. We find substance in the arguments made by the learned counsel for the LDA.

17. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil court and also claim damages for illegal possession of the property as adjudicated by this Court in its order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Writ-C No.2454 of 2014, since 1982, by the LDA. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) December 8, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench