ISRARversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 37479 of 2026

Israr
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

Union Of India And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Ajit Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : A.S.G.I., Anurag Yadav, C.S.C., Rajesh
                                    Kumar Jaiswal

Court No. - 29
                    HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
                    HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Vaibhav Tripathi,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

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

        "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
        commanding and directing the respondent authorities to provide
        the payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of Arazi
        No. 472, in accordance with law."

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 petitioners within a reasonable time and
submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord
adequate compensation accordingly.
                                                                                           WRIC No. 37479 of 2026
                                                                       2


                                    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 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 finalized expeditiously, preferably
                                    within twelve weeks, thereafter.



                                                               (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Sumit S




Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad