Allahabad High Court
PUNEET KUMAR VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is premature and therefore not maintainable; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Puneet Kumar Vishwakarma filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State and other respondents to pay compensation for his land acquisition based on the current residential circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate. The State, through its standing counsel, objected that the petition was premature because the acquisition proceedings were not yet finalized and the required notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had not been issued. The court examined the objection and, relying on a prior Division Bench decision (Abdul Subhan v. State of U.P.), held that the petition could not be entertained at this stage. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with a clarification that the petitioner remains free to approach the appropriate authority when the matter is ripe. No substantive merits on compensation were addressed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the land acquisition proceedings are pending and the Section 11 notification under the RTK Act, 2013 has not been issued.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- maintainability
- pre‑mature petition
- compensation
- Section 11
- RTK Act 2013
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18851 of 2026
Puneet Kumar Vishwakarma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Achint Ranjan Singh, Ramesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shiv Prakash Gupta
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri J.N. Maurya,
learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for
following relief :-
"(i) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondent no.2, 3 and 4 to make payment of compensation to
the petitioner for his land under acquisition on the basis of the
residential circle rate prevailing at present fixed by District
Magistrate."
3. At the outset, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents has raised an objection qua the maintainability of
the instant writ petition on the premise that the proceedings are yet to be
finalized in the instant matter. Learned counsel next submits that the
publication under Section 11 of the Right To Fair Compensation and
Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act,
2013 has yet not been made in the instant matter. In support of his
submissions, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the
Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Writ C No. 11132 of
2026 : Abdul Subhan Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. Learned Standing
Counsel further submits the instant writ petition is pre-mature and no
relief can be extended in favour of the petitioner at this stage.
WRIC No. 18851 of 2026
2
4. Considering the factual situation and the objection raised by learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents, we find merit in the objection so
raised. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition.
The instant writ petition stands dismissed at this stage. However, it is made
clear that dismissal of the instant writ petition would not come in the way of
the petitioner to approach the competent authority/court at the appropriate
stage.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 14, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…