Allahabad High Court
Anand Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 October, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188624-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35780 of 2025
Anand Kumar Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajit Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred for quashing the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by respondent no.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dumariyaganj, District-Siddharth Nagar and also prayed for a direction commanding the respondents to acquire the land of Gata No.1165 as per the proposal/construction of road from MRL23 Dumariyaganj Basti to Ausankuiya via Motiganj and award compensation under Fair Compensation Act and Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the respondents, without any acquisition are utilizing the petitioner's holding, such situation impelled the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction by preferring Writ-C No.23414 of 2023 titled as "Anand Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others", which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents, in a most arbitrary manner, decided and rejected the claim in the light of a judgment passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2913-2914 of 2011 titled as "Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another" decided on 04.04.2011. He further submits that the claim is not stale. He next submits that the road construction has been carried out in the year 2022 and the petitioner's holding had also been affected as the respondents have illegally constructed road over the Gata No.1165 and also are making the earth-work/khadanja and patching work, which was initially done by Public Works Department and later on, the road on the spot was also widened.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that claim of the petitioner is to be considered in the light of Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No.27598 of 2020 titled as "Kanyawati Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others". He next submits that even though, the State Government, in order to facilitate the tenure holders, have already issued a Government Order on 12.05.2016 but instead of referring the matter to the District Level Committee, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has negated the petitioner's claim in an arbitrary manner.
5. Sri Ajit Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel resisted the relief on the premise that the rightful order has been passed and the petitioner tried to raise an old and stale claim. While deciding the claim, the Authority has also taken an objection that the actual earth work was carried out in the year 1992-93 by the Public Works Department whereby the financial approval was accorded on 23.07.1992, as such, the stale claim cannot be agitated at this belated stage and the Authority has rightly passed the order. He further submits that there is no reason to relegate the matter to the District Level Committee in view of the Government Order dated 12.05.2016.
6. Considering the factual situation, we have proceeded to examine the record and perused the impugned order and we find that even though the Authority, on one hand, had accepted certain road construction(brick work) which had been carried out in the year 1992 but later on, it is also reflected that some work had been carried out by the Public Works Department in the year 2022 which is not disputed.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case where the Authority, on one hand had accepted certain work which had been carried out in the year 2022 and the petitioner has rightly agitated the grievance in the previous writ petition, therefore, we find that merely relying on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali (supra), the work which was carried out by the P.W.D. in the year 2022 cannot be disputed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, as highly disputed fact has been pressed before us, at this stage we are unaware as to whether the petitioner's holding had been utilized for certain work which has been carried out by P.W.D. in the year 2022.
8. Taking into account the factual aspect of the issue, we find that the present matter is a fit case to be relegated under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016. In the interest of justice, in case the petitioner files an exhaustive objection before the District Level Committee within a period of two weeks, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and accordingly, the report is to be submitted to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. It is further clarified that the District Level Committee shall not be influenced by the order which is impugned in the instant writ petition and the same shall be carried out independently in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
October 28, 2025
Sumit S
