Allahabad High Court
HANSRAJIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition was dismissed, directing the petitioner to approach the District Level Committee under the 2016 Government Order for compensation, as the statutory remedial mechanism is sufficient.
Summary
The petitioner, Hansraji, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to investigate alleged illegal construction of a road (Rasta) on his land, to hear his objections, and to provide compensation if the land was acquired unlawfully. He also requested expedited consideration of his application dated 07.08.2026. The State counsel informed the Court of a Government Order dated 12 May 2016 which provides that land acquisition claims are to be examined by a District Level Committee under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court noted the constitutional provisions (Articles 300A and 31A) that allow land acquisition only with lawful procedure and compensation, and held that the existing remedial mechanism under the Government Order suffices. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Level Committee within two weeks, and the Committee was directed to decide the claim expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, is available to a landowner alleging illegal acquisition of his land by the State?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the State to investigate and compensate under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- eminent domain
- compensation
- mandamus
- district level committee
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36021 of 2026
Hansraji
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Pandey, Preetam
Kumar Bharti
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Preetam Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following
relief:
"A. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the respondents authority to consider the matter after
conducting a serious and impartial investigation, if the Rasta has been
constructed in any way, legally or illegally and inviting objections, we
should be heard and compensation amount should be given to us. If the
land of the petitioner has been acquired/occupied by any department in
an illegal manner, then initiate the legal procedure against the officer
involved in the said matter.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents to decide the application
dated 07.08.2026 moved by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible
preferably by way of day to day hearing within stipulated period."
3. At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
informed the Court that for redressal of grievance of tenure holders,
claiming certain right/title over their land, the State Government had
issued a detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which provides
WRIC No. 36021 of 2026
2
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 Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 'Act 2013'). He further 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.
4. The position of law is well-established that in view of Article 300A and
31A of the Constitution of India, the owner of the 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.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 17, 2026
GS
Digitally signed by :-
GAUTAM SONI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…