Allahabad High Court
DEV SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent authority to decide the matter expeditiously within two months of the order.
Summary
Petitioners Dev Singh and another filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to grant them compensation and benefits recommended by the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee in its report dated 03‑03‑2023 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners alleged that despite the report, the respondents had not extended the benefits, prompting the writ jurisdiction. The respondents argued that additional time might be required to issue detailed instructions. The High Court examined the report and concluded that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose. With the parties' consent, the court disposed of the writ petition, observing that the Collector/District Magistrate should decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within two months of a certified copy of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are obligated to provide the compensation and benefits to the petitioners as recommended by the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondents to grant such benefits.
- Whether the delay in implementation justifies the intervention of the writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- rehabilitation and resettlement
- mandamus
- writ petition
- compensation delay
- RFCTLARR Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16742 of 2026
Dev Singh And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidya Dhar Dubey, Vivek Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Vidya Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia for the following
principal reliefs :
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to provide the benefit/compensation to the
petitioners within stipulated period as recommended by Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Committee vide report dated 03.03.2023 to the
respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioners (Report dated 03.03.2023
Annexure No.3 to this writ petition).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to given the benefit in favour of the
petitioners in light of in light of provision provided in Second Scheduled
of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in The Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No. 30 of
2013) as recommended in survey report of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Committee dated 03.03.2023 in favour of the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the report
has been submitted way back on 03.03.2023 under The Right to Fair
WRIC No. 16742 of 2026
2
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 (in short 'Act, 2013') instead of best
endeavour, till date, the actual benefit had not been extended in favour of the
petitioners. Such indecisiveness of respondent authority impelled the
petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in this backdrop submits that
some time may be accorded to receive the detailed instructions.
5. Considering the relief as prayed for, we have occasion to peruse the report
as submitted way back on 03.03.2023 to respondent no. 2. In view of the
facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this
writ petition pending consideration. With the consent of the parties, the
instant writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that in case the
respondent no.2, Collector/District Magistrate, Lalitpur has already
recommended the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee report dated
03.03.2023, we expect that the decision is to be made expeditiously
preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy
of this order.
(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…