Allahabad High Court
DAYA SHANKAR MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the High Court lacks jurisdiction to decide compensation claims, which must be pursued in a civil suit.
Summary
The petitioner’s land was acquired for widening a road to an airport, and he agreed to sell the land for Rs. 77,04,330 and his house for Rs. 1,47,212. After the acquisition, possession was taken and the house was demolished. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compensation, alleging that the demolition occurred without prior payment of compensation calculated after depreciation. The High Court held that such factual disputes and claims for compensation fall outside its writ jurisdiction and must be pursued through a civil suit, provided the claim is not time‑barred. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court, however, allowed the petitioner to execute a sale deed after accepting the amount initially assessed as the value of the structure.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained for claims of compensation and damages arising from land acquisition and demolition of a house.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate factual disputes concerning compensation in a land acquisition case.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- writ jurisdiction
- civil suit
- demolition
- property rights
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37621 of 2026
Daya Shankar Maurya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Archana Singh, Prem Shankar Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Learned standing counsel has placed the instructions received from Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Pindra, Varanasi, which is taken on record.
2. The petitioner's land was acquired for the purpose of widening the road
leading to the airport. The petitioner agreed to sell his land for Rs.
77,04,330/-. He had also agreed to sell the house for Rs.1,47,212/-.
Subsequently, possession was taken and the house was demolished.
3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for taking compensation on the
pretext that his house was demolished without prior payment of
compensation, which was to be calculated after accounting for
depreciation. However, such factual disputes cannot be adjudicated by the
High Court under its writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner has any grievance
regarding the taking over of possession or claims damages, he may file a
civil suit, provided it is not barred by any law.
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
5. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to execute the sale-deed
after accepting the amount which was initially assessed as the value of the
structure.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 18, 2026
Mukesh Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…