Allahabad High Court
Kaish Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47499-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7590 of 2025
Petitioner :- Kaish Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 14 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Sharma,Umesh Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
"(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to provide the compensation for the land bearing Gata No. 37/1 area 0.103 Hectare, Gata No. 37/2 area 0.103 hectare, Gata No. 37/3 area 0.035 hectare, Gata No. 37/4 area 0.035 and Gata No. 37/05 area 0.034, total area 0.2026 hectare and the land has been acquired area 0.0448 hectare, but the authorities are not providing the compensation for the land area 0.0448 hectare situated at Village Kashipur, Pargana and Tehsil Rudauli, District- Ayodhya which has been acquired for the 84 Kosi Parikarma Marg;
(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to decide the petitioners' representation dated 12.3.2025, which is pending before the respondent no.3 (contained as ANNEXURE No.-1 to this writ petition; in the interest of justice.
(III) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties not to adopt any discriminatory measure against the petitioners."
3. In view of the orders proposed to be passed issuance of notice to respondents no. 5 is dispensed with.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had bought the land of the aforementioned Gatas total area 0.2026 Hectares through a sale deed on 26.05.2023 from its erstwhile owners. He has now come to know that the land is question is being acquired for the purpose of Chaurasi Kosi Parikarma Marg. Survey is being done in the matter for compensation, but the petitioner's name has been excluded from the claim list. The petitioner has already applied for mutation in his name on the basis of sale deed dated 26.05.2023 .
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents has referred to a full Bench decision of this Court in Sursati Vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ-C No. 30608 of 2018 decided on 05.09.2022 wherein certain questions of law were referred to the Full Bench and they have been answered. The relevant paragraphs referring the questions to be answered are as follows:-
"2. For the purposes of clarity, Question Nos. (i)1 and (ii) referred to above, are reframed as follows:
"1A. Whether the purchaser of the land, after publication of the declaration under Section 3-D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is entitled to receive compensation on strength of his vendor's title?
1B. Whether the purchaser of the land, after determination of amount of compensation under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 is entitled to receive compensation on strength of his vendor's title from competent authority?
II. Which of the judgments (i) Surendra Nath Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and others, [2018 (2) ADJ 760 (DB)] or (ii) Vipin Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, Writ-C No. 10958 of 2018 (DB), dated 27.03.2018, Asha Devi Vs. National Highway Authority of India and others, Writ-C No. 9874 of 2018 (DB), dated 16.03.2018 and Smt. Gyanti Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 12158 of 2018 (DB), dated 03.04.2018, lay down the law correctly?"
****
ANSWER
49. Question No. 1A is answered in the affirmative. It is held that a subsequent purchaser of the land after publication of the notification under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956 shall be entitled to receive only compensation on strength of his vendor's title. He will not have any right to question the acquisition or claim any other benefits. However, it shall be subject to notice to the vendor and his no objection.
Question No. 1B is answered in the negative. The person who has purchased the land after determination of the compensation under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 is not entitled to claim any compensation from the competent authority. His remedy may be under the common law to claim damages or any other amount from his vendor.
As regards Question No.2, it is held that the judgment in Surendra Nath Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India & others, [2018 (2) ADJ 760 (DB)], lays down the law correctly. The judgments in Vipin Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, Writ-C No. 10958 of 2018 (DB), dated 27.03.2018, Asha Devi Vs. National Highways Authority of India and others, Writ-C No. 9874 of 2018 (DB), dated 16.03.2018 and Smt. Gyanti Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 12158 of 2018 (DB), dated 03.04.2018 do not lay down the law correctly, hence, overruled."
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Ayodhya the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgement rendered by the Full Bench of this Court.
Order Date :- 13.8.2025
Darpan Sharma
