HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35921 of 2014 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. However, learned counsel for private respondent no.3 is not present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the State-respondents. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly directing the petitioner to transfer 0.108 hectare land out of 0.177 hectare of Gata No.332 situated in Village- Haidarabad @ Khadua, Bareilly to respondent no.3. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass such order in view of Section 129(5) of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. 5. The record reveals that respondent no.3 has earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.6748 of 2008 praying that respondents be directed to pay compensation or to give land equal to that of the same valuation of land of plot no.588 of respondent no.3 of Village-Haidrabad @ Kharana Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly over which Kharanja road has been constructed by the Rural Engineering Service, Government of U.P. 6. The aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Court by judgement and order dated 01.09.2010, which order is being reproduced herein below:- "By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Tiwari, Hemant Kumar, Satyam Singh, Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.C. Pandey, C.S.C. Bareilly Nagar Nigam Thru Its Nagar Ayukt Bareilly .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the compensation or to give land equal to that of the same valuation of the land belonging to petitioner of plot no. 588 of village Haidrabad @ Kharana Pergana, Tehsil and District Bareilly over which the Kharanja road has been constructed by the Rural Engineering Service, Government of U.P. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that all the villagers of the village except the petitioner by way of signing the document for this purpose gave the concerned for the construction of the said kharanja road for larger interest of the villagers and other public. Since the petitioner is claiming his right which is attracted by Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat concerned is directed to give the land to the petitioner from the land belonging to Gram Panchayat equal to that of area of plot of the petitioner or Government may pay compensation to the petitioner. Petition is disposed of finally." 7. It appears that the order of this Court passed in Writ-C No.6748 of 2008 was not complied with, and thereafter, the respondent no.3 approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.18274 of 2011 seeking relief that representation of respondent no.3 be decided. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition has passed the following order on 25.11.2013:- "Petitioner has approached this Court with request to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 25.11.2010 within stipulated period, if possible within one month. On the presentation of the writ petition, this Court proceeded to pass following order:- "Writ petition was filed by the petitioner about his dispossession from the land in question which was allowed on 1.9.2010 and respondents were directed to provide the equal land which was taken or to pay compensation to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the District Magistrate on 19.4.2011 passed speaking order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) in which a direction has been given to the Superintendent Engineer and Executive Engineer (Rural Engineering Services, Bareilly) to get the needful done. The complaint is that the official has not complied the order of the District Magistrate referred above and thus the petitioner is still suffering. WRIC No. 35921 of 2014 2 In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court directs the Superintendent Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of the Rural Engineering Service, Bareilly, to file their personal affidavit on or before the date fixed stating about steps which has been taken pursuant to the order dated 19.4.2011". Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, two personal affidavits have been filed, one by Mohd. Akram. posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Bareilly and another by Brijendra Kumar, posted as Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Bareilly and both the incumbents at the point of time of filing of personal affidavit have proceeded to mention that as far as they are concerned, they are merely executing agency on the spot and providing of compensation is not at all in their domain and accordingly no liability should be fastened upon them. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and thereafter matter has been taken up for final hearing. In the entire body of the writ petition, prayer has been made to decide representation dated 25.11.2010 within stipulated period. Personal affidavit of incumbents further reflect that as far as District Magistrate is concerned, District Magistrate has been regularly writing the letter to the Nagar Nigam, but till today, but till today proceedings have not at all been finalized. Consequently, District Magistrate, Bareilly is directed to see and ensure that proceedings are finalized in accordance with law, preferably within period of next two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. This much is also clear that Nagar Nigam is not a party, before this Court but Nagar Nigam directed to extend all possible co- operation in the same, so that matter is finalised. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. " 8. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.11.2013, the District Magistrate has passed an order transferring 0.108 hectare of land out of 0.177 hectare land of Gata No.332 situated in Village-Haidarabad @ Khadua, Bareilly to respondent no.3. 9. We find that the District Magistrate has only complied with the judgement and order of this Court dated 01.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No.6748 of 2008 and order dated 25.11.2013 passed in Writ-C No.18274 of 2011. 10. We may note that this Court while deciding the Writ-C No.6748 of 2008 WRIC No. 35921 of 2014 3 has directed the respondent-State to give the land to respondent no.3 from the land belonging to Gram Panchayat equal to that of area of plot of respondent no.3 or compensation be paid by the Government. 11. In the instant case, the respondent-State has opted to give the land to respondent no.3 in compliance of the judgement and order of this Court dated 01.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No.6748 of 2008. If for any reason, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 01.09.2010, he should have filed an application to recall the said order or to challenge the said order before the higher forum by filing appeal which could very well be filed by the petitioner by seeking leave of the Court, but the petitioner did not choose to file any recall application or appeal despite having knowledge about the order dated 01.09.2010. 12. In such view of the fact, we do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. March 18, 2026 Sattyarth WRIC No. 35921 of 2014 4 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad