Allahabad High Court

CHANDRA PALversusDR. BASANT AGRAWAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (FINANCE / REVENUE) / COMPETENT OFFICER, LAND AC

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The Court held that no contempt of the writ order was established as the respondents had complied with the survey and decided the representation.

Summary

Chandra Pal (applicant) claimed that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) had utilized an excess of 0.075 hectare of his land beyond the published acquisition area for a highway project and that compensation for this excess land had not been paid. The High Court, in a writ order dated 10 July 2025, directed NHAI to re‑survey the land, if necessary, and decide the applicant’s representation within three months. NHAI later conducted a joint inspection on 23 March 2026, submitted a report on 24 March 2026, and the respondent district magistrate decided the representation on 25 March 2026. The applicant then filed a contempt application alleging non‑compliance with the writ order. The Court examined whether the respondents’ actions satisfied the earlier directive and concluded that they had complied, therefore no contempt had occurred. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed and the contempt notice discharged, with a reminder that any further grievance must be pursued in the appropriate forum under the National Highway Act.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to contempt of the writ Court's order dated 10 July 2025.
Whether the joint survey and subsequent decision on the applicant's representation satisfied the Court's directive.

Legislation cited

National Highway Act, 1956 — s. 3A, 3D

Subjects

contempt
land acquisition
compensation
National Highway Authority of India
writ petition
survey compliance
arbitration

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7248 of 2025

Chandra Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Dr. Basant Agrawal, Additional District Magistrate
(Finance / Revenue) / Competent Officer, Land
Acquisition National Highway Authority Of India .....Opposite
Project And Another Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rateesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Yadav

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. The writ Court on 10.07.2025 in Writ-C No. 21642 of 2025 passed the
following order:-

"1. Heard Shri Rateesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri
Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State
respondents and Shri Anurag Yadav for National Highway Authority of
India (in short "NHAI"). Shri R.K. Jaiswal appears for Union of India
and vakalatnama filed by him has been taken on record.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to
respondents to make payment of compensation of additionally acquired
area of 0.075 hect. in excess to published area of 0.125 hect. of plot
no.112/3 situated in Village Nagla Umed, Tehsil Sasani, Distt. Hathras
and for a further direction to respondent no.2-District Magistrate,
Hathras to decide the representation/ reminder of the petitioner dated
07.05.2025 within stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is
recorded bhumidhar with transferable right of plot no.112/3 area 0.2062
hect. situated in Village Nagdla Ummed, Tehsil Sasani, Distt. Hathras. In
support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on relevant khatauni of
Fasli Year 1430-1435, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition. A notification was published under Section 3A and 3D of
National Highway Act on 02.11.2021 for construction of national
CAPL No. 7248 of 2025
2

highway. It is alleged that even though part of land of the petitioner had
been acquired but the NHAI had utilised the excess land. In support of his
submissions, he has placed reliance on the communication dated
08.08.2022 sent by the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Hathras to the
Project Director, NHAI, wherein it is informed that after verifying the
record and measurement on the spot, it had been found that excess land
had been utilised for laying the national highway and further request was
made to Project Director, NHAI for reconciling the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits that on
spot revenue officials had measured the land and admittedly excess land
had been utilised by NHAI in laying the national highway. But inspite of
the report dated 08.08.2022, till date the actual compensation has not
been paid qua excess land, which has been utilised by NHAI. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for a direction to NHAI
to ensure adequate compensation in lieu of land, which has been utilised
by NHAI.
5. Learned counsel for NHAI has resisted the relief on the premise that
National Highway Act (in short "Act") is self-contained, wherein full
fledged mechanism is provided. In case the petitioner is aggrieved, he has
remedial forum under the Act to press the relief before the Arbitrator. So
far as communication dated 08.08.2022 is concerned, at present, he is not
in a position to controvert the said communication. As such some
breathing time may be accorded to address in this regard.
6. Considering the factual situation, we are not inclined to adjudicate in
the instant matter at this stage. Once revenue officials had made detailed
survey on the spot and made necessary communication in this regard to
Project Director, NHAI on 08.08.2022, no justifiable response has been
shown to us that inspite of notice to NHAI what remedial measures had
been taken by NHAI.
7. In the facts and circumstances, we find that in response to the
communication dated 08.08.2022, the competent authority of NHAI must
consider the grievance of the petitioner and, if necessary, again survey on
spot in the presence of the petitioner and in case any excess land has been
utilised by NHAI for laying the national highway, definitely the
appropriate order will be passed in accordance with law expeditiously
and preferably within three months from the date of production of
CAPL No. 7248 of 2025
3

certified copy of this order but certainly after giving fullest opportunity to
the petitioner.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. "

2. In the compliance affidavit filed by National Highways Authority of
India (NHAI), in para no. 13, it has been stated that joint team inspected
the spot and measurement was done on 23.03.2026. A report was
prepared on 24.03.2026, which has been brought on record as annexure-6
to compliance affidavit. The State in its compliance affidavit filed on
26.03.2026, in para no. 12, has stated about the joint inspection done and
report submitted on 24.03.2026 and representation of the applicant dated
04.08.2025 was decided on 25.03.2026, copy of which has been appended
as annexure-6 to compliance affidavit filed by State.

3. In view of said fact, as the order of writ Court was only to the extent to
carry out the survey if needed again in terms of the communication dated
08.08.2022 which the authorities have done and have conducted joint
survey and submitted report and opposite party no. 1 has decided the
representation, no case for contempt is made out.

4. The contempt application stands dismissed.

5. Contempt notice stands discharged.

6. However, in case, the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by
opposite party, he may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his
grievance, if so advised.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
April 23, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)

Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…