Allahabad High Court
BRAHM SINGH AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A land acquisition based on a mutually agreed sale deed and consideration cannot be challenged later, and the petitioners are not entitled to a higher compensation rate.
Summary
The petitioners sought a direction that the District Magistrate award compensation at the prevailing market rate for a 1.3680‑hectare parcel of land that had been partially acquired for the Madhya Ganga Canal Project. They argued that while one portion was sold at a higher rate in a deed dated 20‑03‑2023, the remaining portion was acquired later at a lower rate through a mutual agreement, which they claimed was arbitrary. The respondents contended that the acquisition was based on a valid mutual agreement and cited several precedents, including State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar, holding that once consideration is received, the agreement cannot be challenged. The Court examined the facts, noted that the sale deed was executed voluntarily without coercion, and followed the consistent view of the Division Bench in Rajpal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners cannot rescind the agreement or claim a higher compensation rate.
Issues considered
- Can a party rescind a land acquisition agreement that was executed by mutual consent and consideration?
- Is the petitioners entitled to compensation at a higher market rate despite having entered into a sale deed at a lower rate?
- Does the court have jurisdiction to alter the compensation rate after the execution of a sale deed under mutual agreement?
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mutual agreement
- writ petition
- court dismissal
- acquisition law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16443 of 2026
Brahm Singh And 7 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ishan Deo Giri
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri
Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State
respondents and Mr. Saurabh Yadav holding brief of Ishan Deo Giri, learned
counsel for Ganga Expressway Authority (for short, "Authority").
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction
commanding respondent No. 2, namely, the District Magistrate, Amroha, to
award compensation at the prevailing market rate in respect of Gata No. 263,
admeasuring 1.3680 hectare, situated in Village Kharsauli, Tehsil and
Pargana Hasanpur, District Amroha.
3. The claim of the petitioners is founded on the ground that a part of their
land was acquired by the Authority for the Madhya Ganga Canal Project on
13.02.2020, and a sale deed in respect thereof was executed on 20.03.2023 at
a higher rate, whereas the remaining part of the petitioners' holding was
acquired through a mutual agreement at a lesser rate in an arbitrary manner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the aforesaid backdrop, submits
that a direction be issued to the respondent-Authority to pay compensation at
the higher rate, as reflected in the sale deed dated 20.03.2023 executed in
favour of the Irrigation Department.
5. Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
State respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and
placed reliance upon an order dated 2 February 2026 passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.34314 of 2025 (Diwakar Rai and 2
WRIC No. 16443 of 2026
2
others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) wherein the Court has considered an
order dated 18.07.2019 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc.
Bench No. 19406 of 2019 (Smt. Rakesh Kumari vs. State of U.P. and
others) then the order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 15071 of
2025 (Ram Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), followed by the
order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 32984 of 2025 (Geeta Devi
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), and finally the order dated
13.11.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 35714 of 2025 (Rajpal Vs. State of U.P.
and 2 others). He submits that while deciding the writ petition in Rajpal
(supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court also considered the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa
Dyavappa Biradar, LAWS (SC)-2005-3-33, and held that once the
acquisition is based on mutual agreement and the consideration is received,
it cannot subsequently be challenged. He has further placed reliance on the
judgment passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.
6415 of 2023 (Pramod Sharma and 17 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2
others).
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view
that no case is made out at this belated stage, inasmuch as the sale deed was
admittedly executed in the year 2023 on the basis of a mutual agreement. It
cannot be said that the petitioners entered into the said agreement under any
pressure, coercion, or fraud on the part of the respondent-Authority. The
petitioners, with open eyes and a conscious mind, and without any undue
influence or coercion, accepted the consideration and executed the
agreement; therefore, at a subsequent stage, they cannot be permitted to
resile from the agreement entered into between the parties.
7. Under the facts and circumstances, and upon the objections raised by the
respondents, we do not find any plausible reason to take a view different
from the consistent view adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in
Rajpal (supra).
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed.
May 6, 2026
Mukesh Kr.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…