Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 53858 (ALL)

HRIDAY RAM CHAUDHARY AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/14639/2025 · 2025-07-02

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Vinod Diwakar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103968-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14639 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hriday Ram Chaudhary And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Dinesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to command the respondent no.3 to decide the claim of the petitioners according to the Lekhpal report dated 28.02.2025 pertaining to the excess area along with the acquired area. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 09.04.2025, moved by the petitioners. 3. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel placed the detailed instructions sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority, Basti, which are taken on record. He placed reliance on paragraph 7 of the instructions, wherein it has been divulged that in respect of the disputed land, a compensation amount of Rs.5,13,325/- was paid to the petitioners on 17.05.2025. As the petitioners claim that adequate compensation has not been paid to them, they have preferred Case No.681 of 2025, Computerised No.D-202517170000681 (Hridairam Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, which proceeding is stated to be pending consideration. He contends that two parallel forums could not be permitted, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have the occasion to peruse the record in question and find substance in the objection so raised by learned Standing Counsel. The petitioners have already invoked the remedy as is contemplated under law. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is always open for the petitioners to press the relief as available in law. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 A. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad