Allahabad High Court
SHAMBHU SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the compensation has already been deposited and the petitioner may claim it by providing requisite documents or challenge the quantum under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Summary
Petitioner Shambhu Singh Yadav filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State and NHAI to release compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, alleging that despite a notification the amount had not been paid. The respondents contended that the petitioner had been duly notified, failed to claim the amount, and that the compensation of Rs.6,26,22,900 was deposited in an interest‑bearing account on 03‑06‑2025. The petition was also challenged on maintainability grounds as a second writ on the same cause of action. The Court held that the compensation had already been deposited and the petitioner could either claim it by furnishing ownership documents or challenge the quantum under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable as a second petition on the same cause of action
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate release of the compensation amount
- Whether the petitioner’s grievance pertains to the quantum of compensation or procedural default
- Appropriate remedy for challenging the quantum of compensation
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- second writ petition
- National Highways Act
- interest bearing account
- procedural default
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 5882 of 2026
Shambhu Singh Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prakash Man Tiwari, Vineet Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Yadav, C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Prakash Man Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents, and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
2. While entertaining the writ petition on 13.02.2026, considering the
objection of the respondents, this Court proceeded to pass the following
order:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents
and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent -
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the
following relief:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to release the interim award money
for the compensation as per the Rules along with 12% p.a.
interest rate or commercial rate in view of the Right To Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 OR directing the
WRIC No. 5882 of 2026
2
respondents to pay the compensation amount of
Rs.6,26,22,900/-mentioned in the affidavit was paid to the
petitioner under Section 3(A) (2) of the National Highways
Act, 1956, which was published in the notification dated
15.01.2015 in Amar Ujala newspaper, and the time period of
more than 10 years has passed but till now the petitioner has
not been paid the compensation amount.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation
dated 12.11.2025 within a reasonable time as may be fixed
by this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.
Issue any other and further writ, order or direction, as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection
regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the
present petition amounts to a second writ petition, inasmuch as the
petitioner had earlier preferred WRIT - C No. - 22439 of 2025 (Shambhu
Singh Yadav vs. District Magistrate Ghazipur And 2 Others) arising out
of the same cause of action, which was disposed of on 15.07.2025. It is
submitted that a second writ petition on the same cause of action is
impermissible under the Rules of the High Court and is liable to be
dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in pith and substance,
the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the detailed observations
made by the Division Bench in its order dated 15.07.2025, the
compensation has not been released till date.
5. Before proceeding further on the merits of the case, the respondents
may obtain instructions in the matter.
6. Put up this matter again as fresh on 26.02.2026."
3. In response to the aforesaid directions, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned
WRIC No. 5882 of 2026
3
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Shri
Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent – NHAI, have
placed detailed instructions, which are taken on record.
4. On the strength of the detailed instructions, it is vehemently contended
that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings undertaken by NHAI, and
despite notice having been issued to the petitioner, he did not come
forward to receive the compensation. Consequently, the amount
quantified towards compensation was deposited in an interest-bearing
account in Bank of Baroda on 03.06.2025. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that earlier notices were issued requiring the
petitioner to furnish requisite details so that the amount could be released
in his favour, however, instead of taking appropriate steps in response to
such notices, the petitioner has preferred writ petitions from time to time
on the same facts and circumstances. As such, it is contended that the
instant writ petition is devoid of merit.
5. Considering the reliefs sought and the instructions placed on record, we
find that in respect of the acquired land, the award has already been
prepared under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act, 1956”). Since the petitioner did not receive the compensation
despite notice, the respondent – NHAI has already deposited the
compensation amount in an interest-bearing account. It appears that the
grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the quantum of
compensation. We, therefore, leave it open to the petitioner that, in case
he is inclined to receive the compensation already deposited in Bank of
Baroda, he may furnish the requisite documents establishing that he is the
rightful owner of the land in question, whereupon the compensation shall
be released in his favour. We also leave it open to the petitioner that, if he
is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, he may avail the remedy in
accordance with the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
February 26, 2026
NLY
Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…