Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17838 (ALL)

SUMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/4221/2025 · 2025-03-11

Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36461-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4221 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Agrawal Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Singh,Shreeprakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pranjal Mehtrotra, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. 2. The prayer made is for a direction to issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to 'demarcate and segregate' the residential house and bamboo processing unit installed by the petitioner over Gata no.2416 at Village- Thapal, Ismailpur (Muzaffarabad), Tehsil- Behat, Saharanpur and not to demolish his constructions. 3. The petitioner admits that 836 sq. mtrs. of Gata no.2416 belonging to him was acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act and compensation therefor was paid to him. However, the submission is that the tehsil authorities are interfering in the possession of the petitioner over remaining part of his land and are also threatening to demolish his constructions. He submits that certain direction was also issued by the authorities to carry out demarcation. 4. Thus, the prayer essentially is for getting the unacquired part of the land of the petitioner demarcated properly. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed on record the written instructions received from Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Saharanpur in which also, the stand taken is that only 836 sq. mtrs. of Plot no.2416 was acquired and compensation for the said area was duly paid to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation for an additional area measuring 70 sq. mtrs. is without any basis. His remaining land is not affected. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the dispute between them is regarding demarcation and for which the petitioner has legal remedy under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. Therefore, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the said remedy, if so advised. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad