VIPUL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY / ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANR
WRIC/3279/2025 · 2025-04-08
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131640 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131640 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19663-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3279 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vipul Kumar Shrivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prescribed Authority / Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) And Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. The claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land for being part of Gata No.50, which the petitioner purchased vide sale deed dated 12.04.2005 from the recorded tenure holder albeit 18 days after to the notification for acquisition under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, has been declined by the Additional District Magistrate (L.A.), Lucknow on the ground that the purchase, being subsequent to the notification dated 24.03.2005 under Section 3D of the The National Highways Act, 1956, by which the land had been vested in the Central Government, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation, however, while doing so, the officer has failed to take note of a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Writ C No.30608 of 2018; Sursati Vs. State of U.P and Others, wherein it has been held that if the subsequent purchase is prior to rendering of the award, then the subsequent purchaser can claim compensation, however, if the purchase is subsequent to the award, then the purchaser will have to seek remedies against the vendor. We, therefore, quash the impugned
order dated 19.03.2021, as in the case at hand, the award was rendered on 01.09.2006 whereas the petitioner has purchased the land on 12.04.2005 i.e. prior to it, as such, under the Full Bench decision, the petitioner could raise a claim to the said compensation. The Additional District Magistrate (L.A.), Lucknow is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter within two months after verifying as to whether the compensation for land in question has been paid to the recorded tenure holder or not. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. The petitioner may serve a certified copy of this order to the
competent authority, who shall take a decision in terms of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Full Bench decision. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench