Allahabad High Court

LAKHMI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: ARUN BHANSALI ARUN KUMAR

Holding

Petitioners cannot claim exemption from acquisition and are limited to seeking compensation under the earlier order; the petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking the release of land that had been earmarked for acquisition, arguing that the earlier order of 12 July 2011, which allowed them to seek compensation under the Karar Niyamawali, should not preclude an exemption from acquisition. The respondents contended that a similar petition (Kanahiya Lal v. State of U.P.) had been dismissed, and therefore these petitions should also fail. The Court held that the petitioners were bound by the 12 July 2011 High Court order and could not seek exemption from acquisition; the only relief available was payment of compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali. The Court reiterated that the acquisition proceedings were closed and directed that any claim for compensation must be filed afresh within two weeks. Consequently, all the petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether petitioners can obtain exemption from land acquisition after a prior High Court order permitting only compensation under the Karar Niyamawali, 1997.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief beyond compensation in the present writ petitions.

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
exemption
writ petition
Karar Niyamawali
dismissal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 48903 of 2012

Lakhmi and others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others
.....Respondent(s)

Along with :
1. Writ - C No. 30597 of 2018:
Jai Singh Yadav and 78 others
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
2. Writ - C No. 48907 of 2012:
Murari and others
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Basu
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mahesh Narain Singh, Nagendra
Pandey (S.C.), Anuj Pratap Singh, G.P.
Srivastava, J.H. Khan, M.N. Singh

Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of
order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the Special Secretary, Government of
U.P. (Annexure-10), whereby the representations made by the petitioners
pursuant to order dated 12.07.2011 passed in Writ-C No.36993 of 2011
have been rejected, and for a direction to the respondents to release the
land of petitioners.

2. Counsel for the respondents points out that identical petition, being
Writ-C No.19803 of 2012 (Kanahiya Lal and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others) along with other connected matter, by order dated
19.05.2015, has been dismissed and therefore, the present petitions also
deserve dismissal.

3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 19.05.2015
WRIC No. 48903 of 2012
2

observed as under:-

"Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the records of the writ petitions referred
to above, we are of the considered opinion that it was not open to the
petitioners to seek exemption of their land from the acquisition
proceedings, once their writ petition had been decided under order of the
Division Bench of this Court dated 12th July, 2011 with the liberty to
seek fixation of compensation only in accordance with Karar
Niyamawali, 1997. Petitioners are bound by the order of the High Court
dated 12th July, 2011 and cannot travel beyond the same. Their plea for
their land being exempted from acquisition notification has rightly been
rejected. Chapter with regard to the acquisition proceedings, vis-a-vis the
petitioners stood closed with the dismissal of writ petition no. 37152 of
2011.

We may also record that the High Court had restrained physical
possession of the plots by the U.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation till the matter of compensation was decided. Petitioners
taking benefit of the said order resisted their dispossession. The
petitioners cannot now be permitted to content that acquisition
proceedings are rendered bad as possession had not been taken. If the
petitioners are not satisfied with the order of the High Court dated 12th
July, 2011, they could have challenged the same before the Apex Court.
So long as the order of the High Court stands, there cannot be any other
relief in favour of the petitioners except for payment of compensation
under the Karar Niyamawali, 1997.

For the reasons what have been recorded above, all these writ petitions
are dismissed.

However, it shall be open to the petitioners to file a fresh application for
payment of compensation in accordance with the judgment of the High
Court dated 12th July, 2011 within two weeks from today, along with a
certified copy of this order. If this is done the same shall be considered in
accordance with law at the earliest possible. All consequential action shall
be taken immediately thereafter."
WRIC No. 48903 of 2012
3

4. In view of the submissions made, following the order in the case of
Kanahiya Lal (supra), the present petitions are also dismissed with
similar observations.

(Arun Kumar,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
September 8, 2026
RK/Anil

Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…