NURUL HASAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                            WRIT - C No. - 16393 of 2026

Nurul Hasan And Another
                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                     .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   :   Mohd Yasir, Shams Uz Zaman
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 Dilip Kumar holding brief of Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Shri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-
respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following
relief:

      "I. issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
      commanding the Respondents to immediately conclude land acquisition
      under the Right to Fair Compensation and consequently assess and
      release the fair market value compensation, in respect of the Petitioners'
      legally owned land bearing Gata Nos. 184 (Chha), 185(Ga), and 187
      (Da) situated in Village Bewa Hussain, TEhsil Dumariyaganj, District
      Siddharthnagar, while maintaining strict parity with the identically
      situated co-sharer, within a stipulated time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble
      Court.
      II. Issue any other suitable Writ, Order, or Direction to decode the
      representation dated 15.12.2025 pending before the respondent no. 3, or
      which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
      circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners are recorded as
co-tenure holders of the plot in question but in arbitrary manner without any reason
had been left out from compensation. He submits that the co-owner, Baleshwar Prasad
Mishra had also instituted a writ petition, being Misc. Bench No. 2001 of 2007, which
was decided on 22.07.2019. He submits that the rightful claim cannot be denied
merely on the ground of delay and lapse. Learned counsel for the petitioners next
contended that the claim of the petitioners may be examined by the District Level
Committee, which is constituted by the Government Order dated 12.05.2016.
                                                                                                     WRIC No. 16393 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    4.We have perused the record of the case. From the records, it is clear that co-sharer of
                                    the plot has been granted compensation after the order in the writ petition. We see no
                                    reason as to why discriminatory treatment is being meted out when the entire area was
                                    acquired.

                                    5. 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 Act 2013. He submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the
                                    petitioners, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may
                                    examine the claim of petitioners within a reasonable time and submit its report to the
                                    Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

                                    6.The position of law is well-established that in view of Article 300A and 31A of the
                                    Constitution of India, the owner of land can be divested only in accordance with law
                                    after appropriately compensating, if such land is required by the State for public
                                    purpose. Since such power of eminent domain is not in dispute, we need not advert the
                                    matter at this stage in view of Government Order dated 12.05.2016.

                                    7. 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 petitioners to make
                                    fresh representation along with true attested copy of the instant order before
                                    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 petitioners and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalized
                                    expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    gp
                                                                 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad