Allahabad High Court
Smt Purti Agrawal And 6 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others on 3 November, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:193288-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36451 of 2025
Smt Purti Agrawal And 6 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Arvind Kumar, Sharda Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Avadhesh Narayan Dubey, C.S.C., Vibhu Rai
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Ms. Sharda Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj (in short as the "PDA").
2. Instant writ petition has been preferred, inter alia, for the following relief:-
"(1) to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 and 10.12.2024 (Annexure No. 13) passed by the Respondent No. 05/Zonal Officer, Zone No. 05, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj.
(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the Respondent Authorities to pay the adequate compensation in accordance with existing Government Order of Bhumidhary Land with construction of the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are residents of Village- Ustapur Mahmoodabad, Chhatnag Raod, Pargana-Jhunsi, Tehsil- Phulpur, District- Prayagraj. Initially at the time of Maha Kumbh, the respondents had carried out the road widening. As there was apprehension of demolition of petitioners house also because of road widening, the petitioners have approached the writ jurisdiction by filing Writ-C No. 39924 of 2023 (Smt. Nirmla Vishiwakarma and 18 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others). The said writ petition was pressed in light of a judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ-C No. 37460 of 2023 (Shyam Deo and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others). The Division Bench had finally disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 21.11.2023, wherein the counsel who represented the Authority had assured the Court that in case the petitioners' land would be utilized in the widening of the road or any other work, the respondents shall carry out the road widening work following due procedure of law and, consequently, the Division Bench has disposed of the writ petition with an observation "In case the land owned by the petitioners is to be utilized for widening of the road or for any other work, the same would firstly be acquired and then the Authority would proceed to utilize the land for road widening or otherwise." Once the order dated 21.11.2023 has not been complied with, the petitioners had initiated contempt proceedings by preferring a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 501 of 2024 (Smt. Nirmla Vishiwakarma and 7 others vs. Vijay Vishwas Pant Commissioner and 3 others). Finally the learned Single Judge, while disposing the contempt petition, had also observed as under:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no case of contempt petition is made out, particularly, when Shri Arun Kumar who appears for the opposite party has made a statement at bar that the land of the applicants are not being put to road widening, as in case, they are put to road widening then before it, either acquisition proceedings or negotiations will be made and compensation will be paid.
Accordingly the contempt application stands consigned to record, leaving it open to the applicants to challenge the ultimate orders passed on the show cause notices before appropriate forum."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, submits that the road was widened without following the procedure of law and the claim of the petitioners for compensation has been rejected.
5. Per contra, Sri Vibhu Rai, leaned cousel for PDA submits that at no point of time the petitioners' land has been utilized for road widening, as such there is no question for according any compensation. However, he fairly stated that in case the petitioners are inclined to press the disputed relief, they can approach the District Level Committee, which is envisaged in view of Government Order dated 12.05.2016.
6. Considering the successive writ petitions and contempt proceedings, we find that the grievance of the petitioners is required to be examined by the District Level Committee, which is envisaged in view of the Government Order dated 12.05.2016.
7. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioners 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 petitioners sand ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
November 3, 2025
Pkb/
