Allahabad High Court
SANJEEV TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the application for mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeev Tyagi, claimed to be a lawful holder of transferable bhumidhar rights over a 0.8433‑hectare parcel of land in Mathurapur, Ghaziabad, which had been declared non‑agricultural by an order of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, and affirmed on appeal. She sought a mandamus directing the State and the Ghaziabad Development Authority to pay compensation at the non‑agricultural rate and to refrain from interfering with her peaceful possession or acquiring the land. The respondents argued that the land was being acquired through mutual negotiation, with no coercion, and that they would comply with the Government Order dated 21‑May‑2016. The court noted the respondents’ undertaking that acquisition would proceed only in accordance with law and, finding no merit in the petition for mandamus, disposed of the writ petition. Consequently, the petitioner’s request for compensation and protection of possession was not granted.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation at the non‑agricultural rate for the land in question.
- Whether a mandamus can be issued directing the State and the Development Authority to refrain from acquiring the land and to pay compensation.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 — s. 143
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- non‑agricultural land
- mandamus
- mutual negotiation
- public notice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16690 of 2026
Sanjeev Tyagi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Kant Sharma, Ananya Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Ms. Ananya Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri
Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the Ghaziabad
Development Authority.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the compensation/consideration at
non-agricultural rate of the land falling in Gata no. 657, area 0.8433
hectare, village Mathurapur, Tehsil & District Ghaziabad in pursuance to
public notice dated 06.01.2025 at the earliest. Further prayed for a
mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid land and exclude the land
in question from mutual acquisition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question
falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Ghaziabad Development
Authority. The petitioner is lawful tenureholder with transferable
bhumidhar rights of Gata no. 657, area 0.8433 hectare, village
Mathurapur, Tehsil & District Ghaziabad. In support of her submission,
she has placed reliance upon the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by Sub
Divisional Magistrate under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
whereby the aforesaid land of the petitioner was declared as non
agricultural land. She submits that the said order was challenged in
appeal, which too was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2013 passed by
WRIC No. 16690 of 2026
2
Additional District Magistrate in Appeal no. 51/12-13. Against the said
order, no further proceeding has been drawn by the State and as such, for
all practical purposes the land of the petitioner is to be treated as non-
agricultural land. Under the facts and circumstances, it is claimed that the
petitioner is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of non-
agricultural land.
4. On the other hand, Sri Misra, learned counsel for the contesting-
respondent submits that the respondents have proceeded to acquire the
said land through mutual negotiation as such there is no pressure by the
Authority for surrender of land in question. In case, the petitioner is not
inclined to enter into agreement, there is no pressure on behalf the
respondent-Authority. He also submits that the respondent-Authority
would definitely adhere with Government Order dated 21.5.2016.
5. Considering the factual situation as the Authority has proceeded to
acquire the land in question through mutual negotiation and once the
categorical undertaking is given by learned counsel for the respondent-
Authority, we expect the land in question would not be acquired except in
accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.K.Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…