Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 203525 (ALL)

SHER BAHADUR v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/35664/2025 · 2025-10-12

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35664 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. This writ petition is preferred for the following principal reliefs: "Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the two time compensation to the petitioner against the construction of four lane over the petitioner's Bhumidhari Land having area 70.56 in Araji No. 410 situated at village Shaha @ Peepal Gaon, Tehsil Sadder, District Prayagraj in pursuance of the notification dated 30.08.2024 along with interest as per existing circle rate and market value within stipulated period. II. Certirari to tehsildar order" 2. At the very outset, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that admittedly the award is already prepared way back on 09.12.2024 under Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 'the Act 2013'). He further contended that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : B.S. Pandey, Kartikey Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sher Bahadur .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) the quantum of the award, the appropriate remedy lies in seeking a reference before the concerned Collector. Instead of availing that remedy, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 3. Confronted with the situation, Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant writ petition may be dismissed but leave may be accorded to institute the proceedings in accordance with law. 4. With the aforesaid leave, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 13, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 35664 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad