Allahabad High Court
SMT. SHAKUNTLA KUMARIversusSHRI RISHI RAJ, VICE CHAIRMAN OF PRAYAGRAJ DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PRAYAGRAJ AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The Court held that the respondents had substantially complied with the earlier order, and therefore no contempt had occurred.
Summary
The applicant, Smt. Shakuntla Kumari, filed a contempt application alleging that Shri Rishi Raj, Vice Chairman of Prayagraj Development Authority, and others willfully defied the High Court's order dated 11 November 2025 in Writ‑C No. 39005/2025, which directed the authority to pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to decide a representation within a stipulated time. The Court noted that the authority had issued instructions on 26 September 2026 indicating that the claim had been decided, thereby substantially complying with the earlier order. Consequently, the Court held that there was no contempt and consigned the contempt application to the record, allowing the applicant to approach the appropriate forum if dissatisfied. The judgment reiterated that the matter should be referred to the District Level Committee as per the 12 May 2016 Government Order for any further relief. The order was signed by Justice Vikas Budhwar on 1 October 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents willfully defied the High Court's order dated 11‑11‑2025 directing payment of compensation and timely decision of a representation.
- Whether the compliance evidenced by the instructions dated 26‑09‑2026 suffices to defeat the contempt allegation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- writ of mandamus
- land acquisition
- compensation
- district level committee
- compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6536 of 2026
Smt. Shakuntla Kumari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri Rishi Raj, Vice Chairman Of Prayagraj
Development Authority, Prayagraj And 3 Others .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 39005 of
2025, order whereof is quoted hereunder:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing
Counsel for State respondents and Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for
Prayagraj Development Authority (in short "Authority").
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of Arazi No.560Ga
area 2 biswa 41 dhoor (equal to 300 sq. gaj) situated at Village Umarpur Newa
Uparhar, Pargana & Tehsl Sadar, District Allahabad according to current market
rate as per Central Act No.30 of 2013 namely Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition on Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 03.02.2020 moved by the
petitioner within time bound period as directed by this Hon'ble Court. (Annexure No.5
to this writ petition)."
3. At the very outset, learned 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 the 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
CAPL No. 6536 of 2026
2
Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.
4. 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."
2. Today instructions have been produced according to which the claim of
the applicant has been decided on 26.09.2026.
3. Since the order of the Writ-Court has been substantially complied with,
the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it open for the
applicant to question the same before appropriate forum.
4. Let a copy of the instructions be served upon the counsel for the applicant.
5. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.
October 1, 2026
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…