Allahabad High Court
SMT SUSHMA KATIYARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is premature and therefore not maintainable; it must be dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt Sushma Katiyar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for her land acquisition based on the current residential circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate. The State of U.P. and other respondents objected, arguing that the acquisition proceedings were not yet finalized and that a Section 11 notification under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had not been issued. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Abdul Subhan v. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 11132 of 2026), the respondents contended that the petition was premature. The High Court agreed with the objection, finding that the matter was not ripe for judicial intervention. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority at a later stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the land acquisition proceedings are pending and the Section 11 notification under the 2013 Act has not been issued.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- pre‑maturity
- compensation
- Section 11
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18857 of 2026
Smt Sushma Katiyar
.....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, Vibhu Rai
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 Vibhu Rai,
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 directing the to
direct the respondent no.2, 3 and 4 to make payment of
compensation to the petitioner for her 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. 18857 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…