Allahabad High Court
HARISH CHANDRA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the District Magistrate must decide the pending representation expeditiously, within six weeks, without the Court adjudicating the merits of the compensation claim.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Magistrate of Basti to decide a representation they had filed on 22 May 2025 concerning compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They alleged that the representation remained pending, causing undue delay in receiving compensation for Plot No.96. The petitioners limited their relief to a direction that the representation be decided in accordance with law. The Court examined the procedural lapse and, without addressing the merits of the compensation claim, ordered the District Magistrate to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks of the certified copy of the order. The judgment emphasizes the duty of administrative authorities to act within a reasonable time under the 2013 Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with the specific direction to the District Magistrate.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate is bound to decide a representation filed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a reasonable time.
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate to decide the pending representation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- land acquisition
- compensation
- delay
- district magistrate
- representation
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16177 of 2026
Harish Chandra And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Ratan Pandey, Sunil Kumar
Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for
following relief :-
" Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding and directing the District Magistrate, i.e.
respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners of
the accordance with law and the responsible respondents may be
directed to ensure in the strict compliance of the act 2013 namely
Right to Fair compensation and transparency Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and resettlement Act 2013 and pay compensation
without any for the delay in favour of the petitioners according to
the present circle rate to the petitioners of Plot No.96, 96 of the
petitioners, (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition)."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that for
redressal of their grievance, the petitioners have filed representation on
22.05.2025 before the District Magistrate, Basti but till date, the said
representation has not been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has confined his relief to the extent that the said representation moved by
the petitioners may be decided in accordance with law.
WRIC No. 16177 of 2026
2
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition
stands disposed of directing the District Magistrate, Basti to decide the
representation moved by the petitioners on 22.05.2025 in accordance with
law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the
date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that we
are not adverting into the merit of the case.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…