HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 12865 of 2025 Court No. - 43 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent-Moradabad Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned Letter/Order No. 669/1 dated 25.03.2025 issued/passed by respondent no. 5/In-charge Acquisition, Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad (Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition). 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Kanyawati v. State of U.P. and 5 Others (Writ-C No. 27598 of 2020) and submits that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of Kanyawati (supra). 4. So far as the factual and legal aspects are concerned, the respondents have failed to distinguish the instant matter. We find that the observations so made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 in Kanyawati (supra) are squarely covered as per the claim setup by the petitioner, wherein it is categorically pressed that the petitioner is having holding of 150 square meter land of Khasra No. 644, Village Sonakpur, Tehsil & District Moradabad and out of which 38 square meter has been utilised by the respondents without acquisition proceedings or without paying Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Chaubey, Vikas Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana Mohd. Nafis .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) compensation. For ready reference, paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 in Kanyawati (supra) are reproduced herein under. "19. Thus, from the facts of the instant case it is apparent that the land of the petitioner to the extent of 0.033 hectares had been utilized by the State Authorities without authority of law and without there being any acquisition of the land in accordance with law. Undisputedly, the petitioner was the owner of the property in question as she had purchased the land in the year, 2009. From the records it is apparent that the petitioner was running from pillar to post to know the procedure how she has been deprived of the property in question. She has moved the RTI applications and it was informed that she has been deprived of the property without there being any proper acquisition in accordance with law. She has approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition (C) No. 29915 of 2019, which was disposed of on 19.09.2019 with a direction that her case be determined by the District Level Committee in accordance with the Government Order dated 12.05.2016. Vide impugned order though, it is admitted by the State Authorities that her land to the extent of 0.033 hectares is affected by widening of the road, done by PWD in the year, 2014, for which neither the land was acquired nor any compensation has been paid. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, which is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 20. Thus, since the land of the petitioner been utilized without any proper acquisition, therefore, we cannot direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer to quantify the compensation or recommend its payment. In view thereof, we remit back the matter to the District Level Committee to determine the compensation with regard to the land of the petitioner to the extent of 0.033 hectares, which was utilized without acquisition while widening the road in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The compensation so determined shall be paid to the petitioner by respondent no.4 within a period of four weeks alongwith interest as provided in the said Act. 21. While disapproving the action of the State Authorities of utilizing the land of the petitioner without Authority of Law, we are refraining ourselves from awarding the penalty against the State Authorities who have utilized the land without sanction of law. The State Authorities are required to be cautious that they should not utilize the land of the citizens without due authority of law or without following the proper procedure of acquisition, else the authorities, who may be found responsible for such utilization of land without due procedure of law shall be held responsible personally and the court will have to impose heavy penalty for such actions on the part of the Authorities, which shall be recovered from their personal account. " 5. Moreover, we also find that in the instant matter, the Board resolution of the year 2023 is not attracted at all. WRIC No. 12865 of 2025 2 6. In view of the above the writ petition stands allowed in terms of Kanyawati (supra). The Board resolution qua the petitioner, which is duly communicated to the petitioner through impugned Letter/Order No. 669/1 dated 25.03.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Level Committee to determine the compensation with regard to the land of the petitioner to the extent of 38 square meter, which was utilized without acquisition in accordance with the provisions of The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013. The compensation so determined shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks alongwith interest as provided in the said Act. October 10, 2025 A.K.Srivastava WRIC No. 12865 of 2025 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad