VIJAY NARAYAN RAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                         WRIT - C No. - 17878 of 2026

Vijay Narayan Ram
                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Babu Ram Yadav, Salil Krishna
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Kumari
                                      Meena

Court No. - 2
                   HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
                   HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

1. Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Babu Ram Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Kumari Meena, learned counsel for Prayagraj Development
Authority are present.

2. On 20.05.2026, this Court passed the following order:

     "1. Heard Sri Salil Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh
     Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
     respondents and Kumari Meena, learned counsel representing Prayagraj
     Development Authority.

     2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for the following relief :-

     Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the
     respondents for making payment of fair compensation alongwith
     appropriate interest to the petitioner under section 24 of Right to Fair
     Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
     Resettlement Act, 2013ofBhumidhari Land of the petitioner 303 Square
     Yard of plot no.- 560GA, situated at village-Umarpur Neeva, Tehsil
     Sadar, District Prayagraj in pursuance of law laid down by the Hon'ble
     Supreme Court of India in The case of Indore Development Authority
     versus Manohar Lal and others. Etc. as early as possible within a three
     month."

     3. At the outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has raised
     an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the
     premise that the acquisition took place wayback in the year 1987.
                                                                                                    WRIC No. 17878 of 2026
                                                                        2

                                         Admittedly, the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the land in
                                         question and as such, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner is not
                                         maintainable.

                                         4. On the joint request of the parties, the matter is adjourned.

                                         5. Put up this matter as fresh on 25.05.2026."

                                    3. Today, Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Babu Ram
                                    Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, appears and seeks adjournment.

                                    4. We asked him to address us on some merits as the Division Bench found
                                    the petition to be not maintainable on account of the acquisition being very
                                    old, one of the year 1987 and the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser,
                                    the learned counsel who appears for the petitioner's holding brief, is not in a
                                    position to argue.

                                    5. In the circumstances, we dismiss the petition for non prosecution.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Mohit
                                                                             (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)




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