Charan Singh And 20 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12405 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Charan Singh And 20 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 November, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:200197-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - C No. - 35159 of 2025   
 
   Charan Singh And 20 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Mohammad Khalid, Pawan Kumar Yadav   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 29
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.  

HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 30.06.2025 and 01.07.2025 submitted by the petitioners, within a specific period of time as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court. (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition)

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to give the compensation to the petitioners as per his own order dated 13.03.2020. (Annexure No.4 to this writ petition)"

3. In response to the order dated 31.10.2025, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, has placed detailed instructions, which are taken on record. He has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the following grounds:

(i) Firstly, the writ petition has been filed with concealment of material facts, as the petitioners have not annexed a copy of the sale deed executed by them in favour of the State, which has not been brought on record.

(ii) Secondly, it is contended that the petitioners had instituted a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandausi, which was dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file afresh. It is, therefore, submitted that once the petitioners have executed a sale deed in favour of the State, which remains valid and subsisting, they cannot now resile from the same.

4. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 03.07.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench in Writ - C No. 15071 of 2025 (Ramveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others), wherein the Coordinate Bench, while dismissing the writ petition, held that no interference is warranted in acquisition proceedings which are contractual in nature.

5. In addition, learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench in Writ - C No. 32984 of 2025 (Geeta Devi and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others), as well as paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 264. It is further submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and misconceived, and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

6. Considering the objections so raised, we have examined the record and perused the sale deed executed by the petitioners in favour of the State. It is evident that the petitioners have taken a categorical stand in paragraph 8 of the said sale deed, which reads as under:

?8. ???????? ?????? ????? 8,58,000.00 /- (????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????) ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????????

7. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others (supra), relied upon by learned Standing Counsel, are reproduced below:

"12. A right of a landholder to obtain an order of reference would arise only when he has not accepted the award. Once such award is accepted, no legal right in him survives for claiming a reference to the Civil Court. An agreement between the parties as regard the value of the lands acquired by the State is binding on the parties. So long as such agreement and consequently the consent awards are not set aside in an appropriate proceeding by a court of law having jurisdiction in relation thereto, the same remain binding. It is one thing to say that agreements are void or voidable in terms of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act having been obtained by fraud, collusion, etc, or are against public policy but it is another thing to say that without questioning the validity thereof, the Respondents could have maintained their writ petitions. We have noticed hereinbefore that even in the writ petitions, the prayers made by the Respondents were for quashing the order dated 23.8.1999 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and for issuance of a direction upon him to refer the matter to the Civil Court. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus, could not have substituted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer by reason of the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the question as regard the validity of the agreements had not been raised before the High Court. As indicated hereinbefore, the Division Bench of the High Court had also rejected the contention raised on behalf of the Respondents herein to the effect that the agreements did not conform to the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution of India or had not been drawn up in the prescribed proforma.

13. An award under the Act is passed either on consent of the parties or on adjudication of rival claims. For the purpose of passing a consent award, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. An agreement between the parties need not furthermore be strictly in terms of a prescribed format."

8. Having carefully considered the objection raised by Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, perused the material on record including the sale deed executed by the petitioners in favour of the State, and examined the relevant judicial pronouncements cited at the Bar, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. The petitioners, having voluntarily executed a sale deed in favour of the State and having categorically undertaken therein that they shall not claim any further amount beyond the consideration already received, cannot now be permitted to resile from their solemn agreement and seek additional compensation through the instant proceedings. The sale deed remains valid, subsisting and binding upon the petitioners, and has not been challenged or set aside in any appropriate proceedings. The legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others (supra) clearly establishes that agreements regarding the value of lands acquired by the State are binding on the parties, and so long as such agreements are not set aside in appropriate proceedings, the parties cannot escape from their contractual obligations. The ratio decidendi laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Ramveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (supra), which dealt with a similar factual matrix involving contractual acquisition proceedings, is squarely applicable to the present case. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, and finding ourselves in complete agreement with the well-reasoned judgment of the Coordinate Bench, we see no justification to take a different view or to interfere with the contractual arrangement voluntarily entered into by the petitioners.

9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

November 12, 2025

NLY