Allahabad High Court
GANGA PRASAD AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the petitioners must seek compensation through the District Level Committee under the 2016 Government Order.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to halt construction on their private land and to compel the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings with full compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State argued that a Government Order dated 12‑05‑2016 provides a mechanism for claimants to approach a District Level Committee for compensation. The Court noted that the power of eminent domain is governed by Articles 300A and 31A of the Constitution and that the existing procedural framework must be followed. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the District Level Committee within two weeks, with the Committee to decide the claim within twelve weeks. The order thus restores the procedural route for compensation rather than granting immediate mandamus relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the State may continue construction on the petitioners' land without first providing compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the State to stop construction and to acquire the land with compensation.
- Whether the petitioners must first approach the District Level Committee as per the 12‑05‑2016 Government Order before seeking judicial relief.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- eminent domain
- compensation
- mandamus
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act 2013
- District Level Committee
- writ petition
- construction
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39318 of 2026
Ganga Prasad And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramakant Tiwari, Umesh Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Ramakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief:-
"I. To Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to immediately stop all further construction work road or interference
over the petitioner's private land so for Gata No. 212 measuring area 0.0690 hectares,
located at Village- Raswadiya, Tehsil- Mariyahun, District- Jaunpur.
II. To Issue a writ, order, or direction in the narure or Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to entire initiate formal land acquisition proceedings and disburse full
statutory compensation / market value along with solarium to the petitioners and
proforma respondents in accordance with and under the right to fair compensation and
transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 within a
stipulated time-frame, or alternatively, to restore the land to its original tenure-
holders/petitioners and proforma respondents in the interest of justice."
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 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 petitioners, 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. 39318 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 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 petitioners 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.
September 29, 2026
vijay krishna
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…