AMIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                               WRIT - C No. - 17960 of 2026

Amit Kumar
                                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                              Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                                           :     Ajay Sengar
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 Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

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

     "(A) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent

     no.01 to 03 herein not to construct or extend the Asphalt Road (Damar Road) from the

     Agricultural land, belongs to the petitioner herein in Plot No.267, rakwa 0.6450hectare

     (Jodhepura Batta), Plot No.273A, rakwa 0.0250 hectares and Plot No.273B, rakwa 0.3260

     hectares situated in the Village Kudwa (Jodhepura Dharmkata), Tehsil & Pargana Narval,

     District Kanpur Nagar without payment of compensation to the petitioner herein under the

     Land Acquisition Act concerned and without adopting due procedure of law.


     (B) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent

     no.01 to 03 herein to construct or extend the Asphalt road (Damar Road) as shown in the

     schedule revenue records and not in the agricultural land, belongs to the petitioner herein

     in Plot No.267, rakwa 0.6450 hectare (Jodhepura Batta), Plot No.273A, rekwa 0.0250

     hectares and Plot No.273B, rakwa 0.3260 hectares, situated in the Village Kudwa

     (Jodhepura Dharmkata) Tehsil & Pargana Narval, District Kanpur Nagar, without

     payment of compensation to the petitioner herein under the Land Acquisition Act

     concerned and without adopting due procedure of law."


3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had
preferred Writ-C No.20156 of 2025 (Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.)
with the grievance that without acquiring the land, the respondent authorities
                                                          WRIC No. 17960 of 2026
                                 2


are raising certain construction/extending the Asphalt Road (Damar Road)
from the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner. The said writ petition
was disposed of on 1.7.2025 asking the competent authority to consider and
decide the claim/ application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner alleges that instead of taking final call on the said application, in
response to the aforesaid Division Bench order, the respondent authorities,
on the spot, are carrying out construction. Sufficient material, in this regard,
is also appended along with the instant writ petition. He submits that at
present the petitioner has confined his relief that in case the arazi of the
petitioner is utilized for road widening, the adequate compensation be paid
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 'Act
2013').

4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that in response to
the previous order dated 7.5.2026, the instructions are still awaited.
However, he submits that for redressal of grievance of tenure holders,
claiming certain right/title over their land, the State Government had issued
detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which provides that in case
the claimant files claim supported with requisite documents, the same would
be considered by the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate
compensation in the light of the Act 2013. He submits that once the
efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the matter should be
relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of
petitioner within a reasonable time and submit its report to the
Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation
accordingly.

5. The position of law is well-established that in view of Article 300A and
31A of the Constitution of India, the owner of land can be divested only in
accordance with law after appropriately compensating, if such land is
required by the State for public purpose. Since such power of eminent
domain is not in dispute, we need not advert the matter at this stage in view
of Government order dated 12.05.2016.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed
in the instant matter, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the
                                                                                            WRIC No. 17960 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    petitioner to make fresh representation along with true attested copy of the
                                    instant order before District Level Committee constituted under the
                                    Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks. In the event, such
                                    representation is made, the District Level Committee shall consider the
                                    claim of the petitioner and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised
                                    expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter.



                                                       (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    SP/




Digitally signed by :-
SURYA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad