HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36021 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Preetam Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief: "A. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authority to consider the matter after conducting a serious and impartial investigation, if the Rasta has been constructed in any way, legally or illegally and inviting objections, we should be heard and compensation amount should be given to us. If the land of the petitioner has been acquired/occupied by any department in an illegal manner, then initiate the legal procedure against the officer involved in the said matter. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the application dated 07.08.2026 moved by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably by way of day to day hearing within stipulated period." 3. At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel informed the Court that for redressal of grievance of tenure holders, claiming certain right/title over their land, the State Government had issued a detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which provides Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Pandey, Preetam Kumar Bharti Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Hansraji .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) that in case the claimant files claim supported with requisite documents, the same would be considered by the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate compensation in the light of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 'Act 2013'). He further submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of petitioner within a reasonable time and submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly. 4. The position of law is well-established that in view of Article 300A and 31A of the Constitution of India, the owner of the land can be divested only in accordance with law after appropriately compensating, if such land is required by the State for public purpose. Since such power of eminent domain is not in dispute, we need not advert the matter at this stage in view of Government order dated 12.05.2016. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed in the instant matter, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation along with true attested copy of the instant order before District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks. In the event, such representation is made, the District Level Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioner and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter. September 17, 2026 GS WRIC No. 36021 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad