SMT POONAM VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 35357 of 2025

Smt Poonam Vishwakarma
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Surendra Nath Dubey, Upendra Kumar
                                     Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : C.S.C., Mahendra Pratap, Raghav
                                     Dwivedi

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




1. Heard Shri Upendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Ajeet Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Shri Raghav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent -
Project Director, National Highway Authority, Varanasi.

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

     "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus either to
     pay commanding the respondents compensation to the petitioner or to
     provide her possession over her land of Arazi No. 561 area 0.13 hectare
     situated in Village Aidhe, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil Sadar, District
     Varanasi in lieu of her land acquired by the respondents for construction
     of Ring Road within time bound period, which may be fixed by this
     Hon'ble Court.

     b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
     the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner
     at an early date, in accordance with law.

     c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner,
     which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
                                                          WRIC No. 35357 of 2025
                                    2


     circumstances of the case.

     d) Award the costs of petition to the petitioner."

3. At the outset, Shri Raghav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent
- Project Director, National Highways Authority, Varanasi, has raised an
objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground
that the acquisition of the land in question took place under the provisions
of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act,
1956”), and the final notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 was
issued on 04.03.2015. He submits that the petitioner is claiming rights on
the basis of a Gift Deed executed subsequently. According to him, in view
of the law laid down in Sursati vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (9)
ADJ 547, it is well settled that acquisition proceedings cannot be
challenged by a subsequent purchaser/ right holder. He further submits
that in case the erstwhile owner has not withdrawn the compensation, the
subsequent right-holder/title-holder may seek disbursement of the
compensation, and such factual aspect may be examined by the competent
authority, namely, the Additional District Magistrate/Special Land
Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Varanasi.

4. A similar objection has been raised by Shri Ajeet Singh Rana, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. He submits that some time
may be accorded to complete his instructions.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reliefs
prayed for, this Court finds that insofar as the prayer for
release/restoration of land is concerned, once the acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 1956 have attained finality and the award was declared on
03.04.2015, there exists no provision under the Act, 1956 for release of
the acquired land or for restoration/repatriation of the same to the tenure-
holder. The legal position regarding the rights of a subsequent purchaser
is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by the Full
Bench in Sursati (supra), wherein it has been held that a subsequent
purchaser merely steps into the shoes of the erstwhile tenure-holder for
the limited purpose of claiming compensation and cannot challenge the
acquisition proceedings.
                                                                                           WRIC No. 35357 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    6. In the present case, the notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956
                                    was issued on 04.03.2015 and the award was declared on 03.04.2015,
                                    whereafter the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The
                                    petitioner admittedly acquired rights over the land subsequent to the
                                    acquisition proceedings and taking over of possession, and therefore
                                    cannot claim any independent or enforceable right over the acquired land.
                                    At this belated stage, no challenge to the acquisition proceedings can be
                                    entertained, particularly at the instance of a subsequent purchaser/right-
                                    holder.

                                    7. However, in case the erstwhile owner has not accepted the
                                    compensation, it is always open to the subsequent purchaser/title-holder
                                    to seek release/disbursement of the compensation. This aspect can
                                    appropriately be examined by the SLAO.

                                    8. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition
                                    stands disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner
                                    approaches the competent authority, namely, the Additional District
                                    Magistrate/Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Varanasi, the said
                                    authority shall consider and process the claim of the petitioner strictly in
                                    accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six
                                    weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

                                    9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.




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




Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad