Allahabad High Court

RAM CHANDRA KUSHWAHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI KUNAL RAVI SINGH

Holding

The court held that the petitioner must seek compensation through the District Level Committee established under the 12‑05‑2016 Government Order, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Ram Chandra Kushwaha, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj/Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation for land acquired in Arazi No.840 (0.491 hectare). The State counsel highlighted a Government Order dated 12‑05‑2016 which mandates that claimants must approach a District Level Committee for compensation under the 2013 land acquisition law. The court noted that under Articles 300A and 31A of the Constitution, land can be taken only with lawful compensation, and the existing remedial mechanism is sufficient. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation with the District Level Committee within two weeks, and the committee to decide the claim within twelve weeks. The order emphasizes that the matter be resolved through the prescribed administrative process rather than judicial intervention.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to direct compensation via a writ of mandamus, or must pursue the remedy under the 2016 Government Order and the District Level Committee.
Whether the court can bypass the statutory compensation mechanism prescribed under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 300A, Article 31A
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
eminent domain
mandamus
District Level Committee
Government Order 12‑05‑2016
Constitutional law

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                            WRIT - C No. - 19029 of 2026

Ram Chandra Kushwaha
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Mahabir     Yadav,    Vijay  Kumar
                                     Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Pooja
                                     Talwar, Vijay Bahadur Maurya

Court No. - 21
            HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
            HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Vibhu
Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

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

     "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the competent authority Nagar Nigam Prayagraj/ Prayagraj
     Development Authority to give the compensation to the petitioner for the
     acquire area in Arazi No.840 measuring area 0.491 hectare situated in
     Mauja Rasulpur Maria Deeh Uperhar, Prayagraj and Tehsil Sadar,
     District Prayagraj."

3. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel informed to the Court 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 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,
                                                                                           WRIC No. 19029 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

                                    4. 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.

                                    5. 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 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
                                    Pkb/




Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…