Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2002 (ALL)

RAM KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS

WRIC/16475/2026 · 2026-05-05

Kunal Ravi Singh, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16475 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents; and Shri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 12. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent authorities to pay the compensation of petitioner's remaining land bearing area 0.144 hectare situated in khasra no.7m, Village-Sabdalpur, Tahsil-Chandpur, District-Bijnor, to the petitioner according to the office order/recommendation dated 06.09.2019 issued by the respondent no.4 for payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of aforesaid land, on which, the irrigation department has already constructed canal without making payment of compensation to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent authorities to hear and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously within short span of time. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Tiwari, Amar Jeet Singh, C.S.C. Ram Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 11 Others .....Respondent(s) (iv) To allow the writ petition and award the cost in favour of the petitioner." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities constructed a canal over the petitioner's holding without determination of shares vis-à-vis the petitioner and the private respondents. Subsequently, in the year 2015, a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 68956 of 2015 (Kanhaiya Lal and another vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed seeking adequate compensation for the land acquired for construction of the canal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2016, placing reliance upon the Government Order dated 19.03.2015. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2016, respondent No. 4, Executive Engineer, Eastern Ganga Canal, Construction Division-II, Haridwar, passed an order dated 06.09.2019 recommending payment of compensation to the farmers, including the petitioner. It is further submitted that although the private respondents have already accorded a No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner, the compensation has not been disbursed till date despite the aforesaid recommendation. 5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to ensure payment of compensation in terms of the recommendation dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the basis of instructions, fairly submits that he has no objection if the amount in question is disbursed in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner's share of land has admittedly been utilized for construction of the canal. 7. Learned Standing Counsel also fairly submits that in case there exists a recommendation in favour of the petitioner, the competent authority shall process the claim of the petitioner, if the matter is relegated to it for appropriate consideration. 8. We have examined the record and perused the recommendation dated 06.09.2019 passed by the respondent-Authority. It is not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner, with regard to the land utilized for construction of the canal, has been considered in light of the Government Order dated 19.03.2015. We have no hesitation in observing that the petitioner's claim cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period. WRIC No. 16475 of 2026 2 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, to process the claim of the petitioner, taking into consideration the comments of the concerned Superintending Engineer, Eastern Ganga Canal, Construction Division-II, Haridwar. The claim shall be processed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. May 6, 2026 Mukesh Kr. WRIC No. 16475 of 2026 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad