Allahabad High Court
MAHESH CHANDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding its merits, directing that the pending application be decided by the concerned authority within six weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Chand, owner of a commercial premises in Varanasi, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Magistrate to decide a representation dated 22‑04‑2025 and to award compensation of Rs.1,83,60,000 at the commercial valuation rate of Rs.90,000 per square metre, rather than the Rs.30,000 per square metre proposed by the authorities. The petitioner alleged that the lower rate was arbitrary and that the compensation should also cover two boundary walls, two trees and a monolith signage. The State, through its Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contended that the petitioner's claim lacked merit as no evidence was placed on record to show the land was used for business purposes, though it left the matter open for consideration by the authority. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to adjudicate on the merits and, with the parties' consent, disposed of the writ petition, observing that any pending application should be decided by the concerned authority within six weeks of the certified copy of the order. No substantive direction or mandamus was issued.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to decide the representation and award compensation at the commercial rate.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation at Rs.90,000 per square metre versus the Rs.30,000 per square metre proposed by the authority.
Subjects
- compensation
- road widening
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- district magistrate
- commercial rate
- property valuation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 14594 of 2026
Mahesh Chand
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Subedar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the
following relief :-
"I. Issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the District Magistrate, petitioner's Varanasi to
decide the representation dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure No. 5)
and to release compensation of Rs.1,83,60,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Eighty-Three Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) along with
compensation for two boundary walls, two big trees and one
monolith signage as per law and government rates in favour of
the petitioner with interest within a fixed period."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the
proprietor of Vimal Automobiles situated at Lalpur, Pandeypur, Varanasi
and petitioner's holding admeasuring 101.70 square meters is affected
under the proposed road widening. Learned counsel next submits that in
view of the proposed road widening, the petitioner is to be conferred
compensation as per the rate which is proposed by the respondent.
However, the petitioner's holding falls under the commercial rate of
Rs.90,000/- per square meter but the respondent Authority, in arbitrary
manner, is inclined to settle the petitioner's holding at the rate of
WRIC No. 14594 of 2026
2
Rs.30,000/- per square meter. He further submits that a direction be issued
to the District Magistrate, Varanasi to examine the matter and the same be
remedied in accordance with law.
4. Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents submits that at this stage, the claim as set up by the
petitioner is devoid of merit as nothing is brought on record to indicate
that the petitioner's holding is meant for business purpose. However, this
aspect can be examined by the Authority in case the matter is relegated to
the District Magistrate, Varanasi.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to advert
on the merit of the case. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of with an observation that in case, the
application moved by the petitioner is still pending consideration, we
expect that the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned
Authority within a period of six weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
April 20, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…