Allahabad High Court
BADAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner failed to prosecute the writ and the compensation award has already been finalized and paid.
Summary
Petitioner Badan Singh filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the development authority to pay compensation of Rs.9,000 per square meter for acquired land. The respondent, represented by counsel, submitted that the compensation award had already been finalized and paid, and that any grievance over the amount should have been pursued through a reference, which was not done. The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel did not appear to prosecute the petition. After reviewing the respondent’s counter‑affidavit and finding merit in it, the court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. Consequently, any interim relief that might have been in place was discharged.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to obtain additional compensation for the acquired land?
- Does the failure to apply for a reference on the compensation award preclude further relief through a writ of mandamus?
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- compensation
- land acquisition
- petition dismissed
- procedural default
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38501 of 2015
Badan Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : O.P. Singh, S.K. Rao
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C., M.C.
Chaturvedi, Suresh C. Dwivedi
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Case is called out in the revised list. Nobody has put in
appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition,
however, Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
respondent No.- 4 is present.
2. Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
respondent No.- 4 submits that this petition seeks a writ in the
nature of mandamus to command the development authority to
pay compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 9,000/-
per square meter.
3. Sri Dwivedi further submits that entire award has been
finalized and the compensation has been paid to the petitioner
and if petitioner was aggrieved for there being less
compensation, he ought to have applied for reference, which
exercise has not been done and, therefore, compensation
already awarded deserves to be paid.
4. We have perused the counter affidavit and we find merit in
the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent
No.- 4.
5. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner is not
present, writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
WRIC No. 38501 of 2015
2
6. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
May 5, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…