Allahabad High Court
GAJRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that due to the absence of evidence establishing the timeliness of the Section 28‑A application, it could not entertain the writ and therefore disposed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners, whose land was acquired by the State for industrial development, received a statutory award in 2008 which was later enhanced by a 2020 reference. They filed an application under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act on 1 September 2020 seeking re‑determination of compensation, but the application remains pending. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to decide the application. The respondents contested the maintainability of the writ, arguing that no documentary proof was placed to show the Section 28‑A application was filed within the prescribed time. The Court observed that the record lacks such evidence and therefore it cannot adjudicate the merits; it directed the respondents to verify the timeliness and, if valid, to decide the application expeditiously. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of documentary proof that the Section 28‑A application was filed within the statutory period.
- Whether the Court can issue a mandamus directing the respondent authority to decide the pending Section 28‑A application.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 28-A, 4, 6
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Section 28-A
- Mandamus
- Writ petition
- Statutory award
- Timeliness
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17303 of 2026
Gajraj Singh And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshul Kumar Singhal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Shashwat Pandey holding brief of Sri Anshul Kumar
Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mrs.
Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent-Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a mandamus
commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the application preferred by
the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
dated 01.09.2020 within a stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' holding
forming part of Gata/Khasra No. 1051 situated in village Tusiyana
Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambuddh Nagar was acquired by
the State Government for planned industrial development through Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) vide Notifications
issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated
18.10.1997 and 25.11.1997 respectively. Consequently, statutory award
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'Act') was
declared by the competent authority on 11.12.2008 awarding
compensation @ Rs. 74.41/- per square yard to the petitioners. Against
the said award, petitioners had preferred an application under Section 18
of the Act for reference but the said application remained pending for
consideration. Subsequently, Land Acquisition Reference No. 02 of 2010
WRIC No. 17303 of 2026
2
(Smt. Shwetana and others v. State of U.P. and another) registered on
application moved by co-tenureholders was decided by judgment and
order dated 29.07.2020 whereby the amount of compensation has been
enhanced to Rs. 850 per square meter. Learned counsel for the petitioners
in this backdrop submits that immediately thereafter the petitioners also
moved an application under Section 28-A of the Act before the
respondent no. 3 on 01.09.2020 for re-determination of amount of
compensation in the light of award dated 29.07.2020 well within time.
Since then even though the petitioners are suffering from irreparable loss
but the application under Section 28-A of the Act has not been decided
by the respondent no. 3 till date. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Ved Prakash Saini and 45 others v. State of
U.P. and 2 others, 2025 (9) ADJ 679 wherein this Court has held that
Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 is a beneficent provision that must be
interpreted liberally to achieve its object of removing inequality in
compensation awards.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised an
objection qua maintainability of the instant proceeding and submits that no
documentary evidence has been placed on record to indicate that the
application under Section 28A of the Act was filed well within time and in
absence of any such material, no such concrete finding can be adverted by
the writ Court.
5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the record.
6. So far as factual aspect of the matter, whether the application under
Section 28-A of the Act was moved well within time, is concerned, there
is nothing on record to show that the application under Section 28-A of
the Act was moved well within time and in absence of any such
documentary evidence, at this stage we are not in a position to advert the
matter on merit. This factual aspect can be verified only by the
respondents after verifying the record. We further observe that in case the
application under Section 28-A of the Act is well within time, this factual
aspect may be examined by the Competent Authority and in case the
claim of the petitioners is admissible in law, the said application is to be
WRIC No. 17303 of 2026
3
decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 5, 2026
A.K.Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…