Allahabad High Court
SHANKAR DIGVIJAY NISHAD AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners' grievance is a civil matter and no writ relief can be granted.
Summary
The petitioners alleged that respondents No. 7 and 8 sold a portion of land, which did not belong to them, to respondent No. 6 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They sought a direction to the Collector to adjudicate their claim over the disputed land. The Court examined whether a writ remedy was appropriate or whether the grievance must be pursued under civil law. It held that the petitioners’ grievance is a civil matter and not within the jurisdiction of a writ petition. Consequently, the Court found no basis to issue any further order and dismissed the writ petition. The dismissal leaves the petitioners to seek relief through ordinary civil proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct the Collector to decide the petitioners' claim over land allegedly sold by respondents No. 7 and 8.
- Whether the remedy for the petitioners' grievance lies under civil law rather than a writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- civil remedy
- writ petition
- RFCTLARR Act
- jurisdiction
- property dispute
- collector
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 1166 of 2026
Shankar Digvijay Nishad And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ishan Deo Giri, Vivek Mishra
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the
State respondents and learned counsel for the contesting respondents are
present.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that certain area of their land
which did not belong to the respondent nos. 7 and 8, had been sold out by
them under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the respondent no.
6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since, their portion of
land had been sold out by the respondent no. 7 and 8, this Court may
direct the concerned Collector to decide the claim of the petitioners.
4. We have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and we are of the view that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the
fact that respondent nos. 7 and 8 have sold out the share of land which did
not belong to them, the petitioners have every right to pursue the remedy
which lies under the Civil Laws. As such, no further orders are required to
be passed in this petition.
5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 29, 2026/Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…