Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 85793 (ALL)

RAKESH KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/27867/2025 · 2025-09-09

Anish Kumar Gupta, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27867 of 2025 (Sl. No. 12) Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Paras Nath Rai, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for quashing the order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, District Aligarh. It is also prayed that a direction be issued commanding the respondents to ensure the possession of land being Gata No. 70/2 area 1671 sqr. meter (for the excess area encroached by the respondent no. 2) situated in Village-Padiyawali, Pargana and Tehsil-Koli, District-Aligarh or to pay the just compensation to the petitioner within a stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being Writ C No. 17153 of 2024 (Rakesh Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs. Union of India and 4 Others) which was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 23.7.2024 and the matter was relegated to the District Level Committee which is envisaged under G.O. dated 12.5.2016. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits even though the appurtenant land which is not required by the NHAI has been purchased by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Vishal Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Akanksha Gaur, C.S.C., Paras Nath Rai Rakesh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner after the acquisition, the grievance of the petitioner is that an ex parte demarcation has been carried out in presence of the NHAI officials and negated the earlier demarcation report which was submitted on 2.11.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop states that the order impugned is hit by principle of natural justice as the alleged demarcation has not been carried out in presence of the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. The relief is resisted by learned counsel for the respondents on two fold submission. Firstly, the disputed land has been purchased by the petitioner after the notification under the National Highways Act without any actual demarcation on the spot. Even though on the previous round of litigation the Court has relegated the matter to the District Level Committee in the light of G.O. dated 12.5.2016. While passing the impugned order, the Authority has already taken a view that the previous report was defective in nature and some action has also been taken against the officials who have submitted the alleged report dated 2.11.2023 on which the petitioner is relying. Secondly, if the petitioner is aggrieved by actual demarcation he is having an efficacious remedy to press an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Moreover, the disputed fact cannot be pressed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Considering the factual situation as emerged from the record in question, we have carefully examined the impugned order dated 25.4.2025 and we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition which warrant interference in the impugned order. However, we observe that this order would not come in the way of any fresh proceeding which is drawn qua the actual demarcation under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 of the disputed holding. The said demarcation is to be ensured in the presence of petitioner as well as other affected stakeholders, especially the NHAI. 7. The said demarcation exercise be carried out within three months from the date of application moved by the petitioner under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of. WRIC No. 27867 of 2025 2 September 10, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 27867 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad