RAGHVENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. CHIEF SECY. LKO. AND OTHERS
WRIC/3718/2025 · 2025-04-21
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134580 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134580 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22328-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3718 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kudesia,Anurag Tyagi,Himanshu Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard.
2. Petitioner herein has received sale consideration and executed a sale deed which has been purchased by opposite parties for public purposes. Now, this petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to determine the adequate compensation in respect of House No.C-215 (measuring 0.373 Hectare) situated at Civil Lines, Kasba and Tehsil- Nawabganj, Barabanki, which is an ancestral property of Kunwar Raghunath Singh; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25-02-2025; (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner; (iv) cost of the Writ Petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. "
3. On being asked to demonstrate as to how writ petition is maintainable, petitioner's counsel invited our attention to Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, however, we find that this provision is attracted in the case of compulsory acquisition which is not the case here. Petition is not maintainable at this stage. Petitioner, if he so chooses, may avail remedies as may be prescribed in law.
4. The case of the petitioner is different from the petitioner of Writ-C No.1410 of 2025 who stated that he also has a share in the land in question which has been purchased by the State without his consent and that he had never executed sale deed in
favour of the State.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench