Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 95568 (ALL)

MOHAMMAD SHAH ALAM v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/32192/2025 · 2025-09-15

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. - 32192 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish any part of the house of petitioner and also not to compel him to sign any agreement of sale against his wishes. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances the Court has accorded indulgence vide order dated 20.5.2025 in Writ-C No.12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors.). In similar circumstances, relying on the order in Shahnawaz Khan (Supra) indulgence has also been accorded in Writ-C No.31114 of 2025 (Smt. Qamar Jahan v. State of U.P. & Ors.) vide order dated 9.9.2025. As such, it is submitted that being on similar footing, similar indulgence may also be accorded in the instant matter also. For ready reference, the order dated 20.05.2025 is reproduced as under:- "5. The District Magistrate, Varanasi has filed his affidavit on behalf of the State-respondents. The stand taken therein is that the State- Government is proposing to widen and strengthen Dal Mandi road. On 20.3.2025 a preliminary estimate was sent to the State Government for the said purpose. The total estimated cost was Rs. 22059.46 lakhs. Subsequently, a revised estimate was also submitted. The Public Works Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dileep Kumar, Kishan Singh, Sushil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohammad Shah Alam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Department made demarcation of the land/houses which would be affected by widening under the proposed work. It is unequivocally stated in the affidavit that the respondents would acquire title over the land/building which would be affected by the proposed project on basis of mutual consent or through acquisition under the provisions of the Act of 2013. The relevant assertions contained in this regard in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 are extracted below:- "13-That, the widening and strengthening of the road in question will be completed after the settling the dispute amicably either by purchasing the land in question as provisions of the government order No. 2/2015/215/??-13-2015-20(48)/2011 dated 19.03.2015, with mutual consent/agreement or as per the prescribed provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. A true copy of the government order dated 19/03/2015 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. 14-That widening and strengthening of the road in question would be completed after providing the compensation under the provisions of the government order (supra), and if the land owner does not give his consent, then the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be applied. 15-That at present, there is no demolition drive going on adjacent of the road side of the road in question for road widening, those land owners come in purview in the alignment of the road widening and strengthening of the road in question they must be dealt with under the due process of law and no one have deprive their legal rights." 6. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rajeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that the respondents would not disturb the possession of the petitioner nor demolish his constructions unless title over the same is acquired through voluntary transfer or by compulsory acquisition or any other mode recognized under law. 7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid stand, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the same." 4. So far as the factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be WRIC No. 32192 of 2025 2 disputed by learned Standing Counsel. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of Shahnawaz Khan (Supra). September 16, 2025 SP/ WRIC No. 32192 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad