SMT SEEMA DEVI AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/4242/2025 · 2025-02-13
Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18331 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18331 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21940-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 38) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4242 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Seema Devi And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitesh Kumar,Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal,A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Sri R.K. Jaiswal, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2. Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 1.
2. The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disburse compensation amount and other benefits for residential construction existing over Gata No. 2502, Village Pata (Osa Chauraha), Pargana-Karari, Tehsil-Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi to respondent no. 4 (wrongly mentioned as respondent no. 5 in the prayer clause).
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are co-sharer of the aforesaid land along with respondent no. 4 and other persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there are two different awards; one in respect of the land and another for the superstructure. In respect of the superstructure, the respondents are proposing to pay entire compensation to respondent no. 4 whereas the petitioners also have share in the same. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has submitted representation on 19.7.2024 before the Competent Authority but no decision has been taken on the same.
4. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents states that the Competent Authority will decide the representation of the petitioners.
5. In our opinion, the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation for their alleged share in the superstructure is required to be examined in the first instance by the Competent Authority having regard to the provisions of Section 3H(3) and 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to the Competent Authority to decide the representation dated 19.7.2024 by a speaking order within twelve weeks from the date of communication of a true attested copy of the instant order along with photo copy of the representation after hearing all concerned.
Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad