SMT GULABA DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                            WRIT - C No. - 39479 of 2025

Smt Gulaba Devi And Another
                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :    Surya Prakash Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :    C.S.C., Vaibhav Tripathi

Court No. - 21

                 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
                 HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Surya Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gopal
Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Vaibhav
Tripathi appears for the respondent no. 3.

3. The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the validity of the order dated
02.04.2025 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Basti, whereby the claim
of the petitioners had been rejected. It is claimed that the petitioners are tenure holders
of Gata No. 153, Village Bhakrahi, Tappa Dubaulia, Pargana Amodha, District Basti.
It reflects from the record that the Central Government has proceeded to notify the
land for the purpose of making four lane National Highway. Accordingly, the
notification under Section 3(A) of National Highways Act was issued and later on, it
appears that the husband of first petitioner, namely Ram Pher, died. The husband of
first petitioner was recorded as tenure holder and later on, the name of the first
petitioner was mutated on 17.11.2021. The claim of the petitioners have been denied
on the ground that the first petitioner has executed a gift deed in favour of her
daughter-in-law on 17.11.2021. The gift deed has been executed in favour of second
petitioner by the first petitioner. The first petitioner has also accorded NOC in favour
of second petitioner for release of the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that it is not disputed that
the petitioner's husband was recorded as tenure holder and after her husband's demise
the name of first petitioner was duly mutated and later on, a gift deed was executed in
favour of her daughter-in-law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
on a judgement of Sursati Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (9) ADJ 547. He
                                                                                                     WRIC No. 39479 of 2025
                                                                         2


                                    submits that there is no challenge to the acquisition but at the same time, the law is
                                    well settled with regard to claim of compensation. The person, who acquires title to
                                    the land after the preliminary notification is entitled to claim compensation only.
                                    Hence, the rightful claim cannot be denied in arbitrary manner.

                                    4. Per contra, learned counsel for NHAI in support of the counter affidavit, submits
                                    that it is admitted position that the disputed land was subject matter of acquisition
                                    under the NHAI Act and adequate compensation has already been deposited by the
                                    Special Land Acquisition Officer. As per his instruction there was no permission to
                                    transfer, hence compensation cannot be released. However, as to the legal position, he
                                    submits that the same is well settled. All the aspect can be examined by the respondent
                                    authority and release the compensation.

                                    5. Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel, submits that under the fact
                                    and circumstances, it is accepted position that the compensation is to be released.
                                    Since there is no challenge to the acquisition, the rightful claim must be settled. After
                                    the preliminary notification, the rightful claim of compensation cannot be denied to
                                    any party claiming rights after the preliminary notification.

                                    6. Under the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the claim
                                    qua compensation is to be examined by the Authority. The record reflects that there is
                                    no dispute of share. There is also no other claim over the land in question.The
                                    judgement of Sursati (supra) is fully applicable in the present case.

                                    7. Accordingly, the order dated 02.04.2025 is set aside and the matter is relegated
                                    back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to examine in the light of the discussions
                                    made above and do the needful within six weeks.

                                    8. The writ petition stands disposed of.




                                                          (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    gp




Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad