Allahabad High Court
M/S Bainda Oil And Fats Llp vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 October, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187745-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30522 of 2025
M/S Bainda Oil And Fats Llp
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ambrish Shukla, Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned A.C.S.C. for the State respondents and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA).
2. While entertaining the writ petition, the Division Bench on 03.09.2025 has passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devesh Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for U.P. State Industrial Development Authority.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction commanding respondent authority to ensure payment of compensation of the land of the petitioners acquired, at the rate of land being industrial in nature, as on 01.01.2014 in terms of judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ-C No.33785 of 2018, confirmed in SLP (C) No.1186 of 2023 and in terms of Circular of Government of India DO letter dated 26th October, 2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 passed in Writ-C No.33785 of 2018 (M/s Bainda Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.) wherein the petitioner had challenged the acquisition notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act, 1894), which were issued on 20.11.1999 and 21.12.2000 respectively. Even though the possession was allegedly taken on 19.01.2002, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.5815 of 2002 challenging the acquisition proceedings wherein the interim order was also passed on 18.02.2002 to the effect that until further order of the Court, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, states that the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2022 with a direction to the competent authority to determine the compensation with respect to the land in question by declaration of the award of the land of Khasra Nos.22 to 30 and Khasra No.50, total area 5.572 hectares of Village Nagla Hasanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (in short "the Act, 2013").
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 had been assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.1186 of 2023, but it was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, states that the law is no more res integra. The relevant date for determining the compensation in respect of acquisition initiated under the Act, 1894, but, where award could not be made by the time the Act, 2013 came into force, would be 01.01.2014. The relief is being pressed in the light of the Division Bench judgment and order passed in Writ-C No.31120 of 2019 (Pyare Lal and 24 Ors. vs. Union of India & 4 Ors.). He submits that the award is to be made under the Act, 2013 at the rate which was prevalent on 01.01.2014. In spite of the said fact, the authority has not ensured the compensation at the rate prevalent on 01.01.2014. Such situation has impelled the petitioners to invoke writ jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is accorded three weeks' time to obtain instructions in the matter.
8. Put up this matter, as fresh, on 22.09.2025 showing the name of Sri Ambrish Shukla as counsel for the respondent."
3. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has informed this Court that a review application bearing Diary No. 53311/2025 has been filed on 16.09.2025 before the Hon'ble Apex Court titled as U.P. State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) (earlier known as U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation) vs. Bainda Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. He submits that as the review application is already preferred and diary number is already issued, some further time may be accorded to place on record the outcome of the said proceedings.
4. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the relief prayed for by the learned counsel for UPSIDA and submits that while entertaining the writ petition the Court has made detailed observation on 03.09.2025 and immediately thereafter the Authority has preferred the review application just to delay and prolong the litigation even though the dispute involved is no more res integra, therefore, no further relaxation can be granted to respondent Authority.
5. In light of the facts and circumstances as well as record of the case, we find that by means of order dated 14.09.2022 the Court in Writ-C No. 33785 of 2018 (M/s Bainda Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) had issued a direction to the competent authority only to determine the compensation with respect to the land in question by declaration of the award of the land of Khasra Nos. 22 to 30 and Khasra No. 50, total area 5.572 hectares of Village Nagla Hasanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The said order was challenged by means of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1186/2023, wherein the Supreme Court has passed an interim order dated 23.01.2023 recording the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 23.01.2023 is being quoted herein below:
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following order:
Mr. A.N.S. Nadharni, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not interested acquiring the land and oppose to denotify the acquisition.
Issue notice, returnable within four weeks.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
Until further orders, there shall be stay of the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2022."
6. However, by means of order dated 22.07.2025 the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1186 of 2023 was dismissed leaving the question of law open.
7. It is submitted today that a review application has been filed against the said order on 16.09.2025 and the same is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
8. We are of the considered opinion that once the order of the Court dated 14.09.2022 has attained finality, as the Supreme Court had declined to interfere in the impugned judgement and order passed by the Division Bench, the order dated 14.09.2022 had to be complied with in letter and spirit. The Authority was duty bound to determine the compensation with respect to the land in question. It is further fortified from the fact that earlier, at the time of admission of special leave petition, a statement was made that the land would be de-notified but even after a period of two years no de-notification proceedings took place.
9. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the directions contained in judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 passed in Writ-C No. 33785 of 2018 are liable to be complied with by the respondents.
10. The writ petition is disposed off with the direction that the exercise of computing the compensation shall be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
October 27, 2025
Pkb/
