Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAJKUMARI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is disposed without merits, directing petitioners to file fresh representation and the respondent to forward it to the committee for decision within twelve weeks.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and a district level committee to pay compensation for land submerged by the Chaudhary Charan Singh Rasin Dam and to decide their compensation application within a stipulated period. They relied on a prior coordinate bench decision (Writ‑C No.25521 of 2022) which had ordered the committee to decide similar claims under Government Order dated 12‑05‑2016. The respondents, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised no objection to the relief sought. The bench chose not to express any view on the merits and disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to file a fresh representation with a true attested copy of the order within two weeks. The respondents were directed to place that representation before the Chairman of the committee for a decision within twelve weeks, with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before any final order.

Issues considered

  • Whether the court should issue mandamus directing the respondent to pay compensation for land submerged due to the dam.
  • Whether the court should direct the respondent to decide the petitioners' compensation application within a stipulated period.
  • Whether the petition can be disposed without adjudicating the merits and instead remanded for fresh representation before the committee.

Subjects

  • writ of mandamus
  • compensation
  • dam submergence
  • government order 12-05-2016
  • district level committee
  • fresh representation
  • administrative determination

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 37501 of 2026

Rajkumari And 2 Others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Jaideep Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners sand Shri Devesh Vikram,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
respondents.

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 the respondents (especially the respondent no. 2) to
     ensure the payment compensation to the petitioners in respect to
     the land in question, which has became useless for the cultivatory
     proposes of the petitioners because of its submerged due to
     construction of Dam, namely Chaudhary Charan Singh Rasin
     Dam, Chitrakoot within stipulated period of time.

     ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the respondents (specially the respondent no. 2) to
     decide the petitioners' application dated 20-02-2026 for grant of
     compensation within a stipulated period of time."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical facts and
circumstances a Coordinate Bench in Writ-C No.25521 of 2022 directed
District Level Committee to decide the claim of the petitioners in terms of
Government Order dated 12.05.2016. He submits that similar direction be
issued in the instant case also.
                                                                                              WRIC No. 37501 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    4. Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing
                                    for the State-respondents has no objection to the same.

                                    5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant
                                    petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh
                                    representation alongwith true attested copy of the instant order before
                                    respondent no.2 within two weeks from today and in which event,
                                    respondent no.2 shall place the representation before the Chairman of the
                                    Committee envisaged under Government Order dated 12.05.2016 for being
                                    decided within next twelve weeks, in accordance with law. Before taking
                                    any decision, the petitioners shall be afforded opportunity of hearing.



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




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.