Allahabad High Court
Krishna Bahadur Singh And 29 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 November, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:192797-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37634 of 2025
Krishna Bahadur Singh And 29 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Gaurav Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajeet Singh, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Kanpur Development Authority (KDA).
2. The instant writ petition is preferred inter alia with the following relief :
"a) Issue a order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners pending before him since 20.05.2025 and 24.09.2025 within a stipulated period of time.
b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to take a decision as per judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court regularly payment of compensation to the petitioners.
c) Award cost of the instant Petition in favour of the Petitioners."
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisition notification dated 14.02.2005 in Writ - C No. 19939 of 2006 (Krishna Bahadur Singh and Others vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur Nagar and Others), which was allowed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2015, whereby the acquisition dated 14.02.2005 was set aside. The Division Bench held that invocation of the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act, 1894?) was not sustainable in view of the judgments of the Hon?ble Apex Court in Anand Singh vs. State of U.P., (2010) 11 SCC 243 and Radhy Shyam vs. State of U.P., (2011) 5 SCC 553. Thereafter, the KDA filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31656 of 2015 (Kanpur Development Authority through its Vice-Chairman vs. Krishna Bahadur Singh and Others), wherein the Hon?ble Apex Court, by judgment and order dated 06.05.2025, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.03.2015 and upheld the acquisition proceedings. For ready reference, the judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court dated 06.05.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow.
"1. Leave granted.
2. Vide the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the acquisition proceedings whereby the inquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') had been dispensed with, by invoking Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act. The proceedings were quashed on the premise that there was considerable time gap between the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, and the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, which clearly demonstrated that there was no urgency for acquiring the land and therefore, the inquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the 1894 Act had been dispensed with, without application of mind. Incidentally, the High Court has also held that relevant material, including the report which indicated the necessity of dispensing with the inquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, had not been placed before it.
3. It is no doubt true that the acquisition of land under the 1894 Act, which is an expropriatory legislation, must be carried out strictly in accordance with law. The power to dispense with the inquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, cannot be exercised in a routine manner. There must be an element of justification to do the same.
4. In the case on hand, the acquisition is for the purpose of expanding an existing road. The construction of the road has been completed except to the extent of the land sought to be acquired herein. There was also a compelling necessity for the expansion of the road, in view of the increasing traffic congestion. Accidents had been common, and serious inconvenience was being caused to the commuters. One cannot say that the purpose of the acquisition is neither in the interest of the public nor warrants urgent action.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed substantial reliance upon the decision of this Court in ?Hamid Ali Khan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.?, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 65, inasmuch as the purpose of the acquisition is different, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. In fact, this Court has passed the aforesaid judgment on the facts of the case therein, particularly having regard to the nature of the scheme which was for housing, and rightly holding that there was no need to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act.
6. In our considered view, the High Court has made a roving enquiry, and fixed the onus entirely on the appellants, without taking note of the fact that the very purpose of the acquisition was to expand an existing road.
7. Thus, we are not inclined to concur with the view expressed by the High Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the acquisition proceedings are upheld.
8. We also take note of the fact that houses had been put up by the respondent(s) on the land sought to be acquired herein, without any approval. Therefore, even on that ground, no equity can be extended in favour of the respondent(s). However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we give liberty to the respondents to work out a remedy insofar as the payment of compensation is concerned. All issues on the entitlement of the respondent(s) to receive compensation, are left open."
4. Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, contends that despite the judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court dated 06.05.2025, compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioners. He submits that a direction be issued to the respondents to determine and disburse compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter ?the Act, 2013?). Alternatively, he prays that the pending representations dated 20.05.2025 and 24.09.2025 be decided within a time-bound manner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for KDA vehemently resisted the relief and submits that the petitioners themselves had earlier challenged the invocation of the urgency clause in Writ - C No. 19939 of 2006, and due to the interim order passed therein, no compensation award could be finalized, even though the petitioners had ultimately succeeded in the said writ petition. He places reliance on paragraph 5 of the judgment and order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Hon?ble Apex Court, and submits that the Division Bench had quashed the urgency clause on an erroneous premise, as the purpose of the acquisition was for road expansion, whereas the Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the acquisition was for housing purposes, and accordingly upheld the acquisition proceedings. He further submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any equitable relief, as they themselves initiated the litigation and now seek the benefit of compensation under the Act, 2013, which is not legally available to them. However, he fairly submits that, at this stage, he has no objection if, in view of the communication dated 29.09.2025 sent by the Secretary, KDA to the SLAO, Kanpur Nagar, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the SLAO, Kanpur Nagar, to finalize the proceedings in accordance with law.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Hon?ble Apex Court, vide judgment dated 06.05.2025, has upheld the acquisition proceedings and granted liberty to the landowners to pursue the remedy with respect to compensation. It is also borne out from the record that the KDA has already addressed a communication dated 29.09.2025 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kanpur Nagar for initiation of the compensation process. In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Kanpur Nagar to proceed expeditiously and pass an appropriate order/award strictly in accordance with law, subject to there being no legal impediment. The entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the SLAO, Kanpur Nagar. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the quantum or rate of compensation, which shall be determined independently by the SLAO in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
November 3, 2025
Priya
