RAM KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                        WRIT - C No. - 16475 of 2026

Ram Kumar Singh
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
State Of U.P. And 11 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Abhishek Tiwari, Amar Jeet Singh,
                                     C.S.C.

Court No. - 21
            HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
            HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Shri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents;
and Shri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7
to 12.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution, inter alia, for the following relief:

     "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
     to the respondent authorities to pay the compensation of petitioner's
     remaining land bearing area 0.144 hectare situated in khasra no.7m,
     Village-Sabdalpur, Tahsil-Chandpur, District-Bijnor, to the petitioner
     according to the office order/recommendation dated 06.09.2019 issued by
     the respondent no.4 for payment of compensation to the petitioner in
     respect of aforesaid land, on which, the irrigation department has already
     constructed canal without making payment of compensation to the
     petitioner.


     (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to
     the respondent authorities to hear and decide the representation of the
     petitioner expeditiously within short span of time.


     (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem
     fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
                                                          WRIC No. 16475 of 2026
                                 2

     (iv) To allow the writ petition and award the cost in favour of the
     petitioner."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities
constructed a canal over the petitioner's holding without determination of
shares vis-à-vis the petitioner and the private respondents. Subsequently, in
the year 2015, a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 68956 of 2015 (Kanhaiya
Lal and another vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed seeking adequate
compensation for the land acquired for construction of the canal. The said
writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 03.03.2016, placing reliance upon the Government Order dated
19.03.2015. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2016,
respondent No. 4, Executive Engineer, Eastern Ganga Canal, Construction
Division-II, Haridwar, passed an order dated 06.09.2019 recommending
payment of compensation to the farmers, including the petitioner. It is
further submitted that although the private respondents have already
accorded a No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner, the
compensation has not been disbursed till date despite the aforesaid
recommendation.

5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction
be issued to the respondents to ensure payment of compensation in terms of
the recommendation dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

6. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the basis of instructions,
fairly submits that he has no objection if the amount in question is disbursed
in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner's share of land has admittedly
been utilized for construction of the canal.

7. Learned Standing Counsel also fairly submits that in case there exists a
recommendation in favour of the petitioner, the competent authority shall
process the claim of the petitioner, if the matter is relegated to it for
appropriate consideration.

8. We have examined the record and perused the recommendation dated
06.09.2019 passed by the respondent-Authority. It is not in dispute that the
claim of the petitioner, with regard to the land utilized for construction of the
canal, has been considered in light of the Government Order dated
19.03.2015. We have no hesitation in observing that the petitioner's claim
cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period.
                                                                                           WRIC No. 16475 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent
                                    of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the
                                    Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, to process the
                                    claim of the petitioner, taking into consideration the comments of the
                                    concerned Superintending Engineer, Eastern Ganga Canal, Construction
                                    Division-II, Haridwar. The claim shall be processed expeditiously,
                                    preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a
                                    certified copy of this order.

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




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad