Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sanchita Ptel And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 22 September, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:169304-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 33187 of 2025
Smt. Sanchita Ptel And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Gaurav Maurya, Surya Prakash Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Shyam Mani Shukla
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri Surya Prakash Dubey, learned counsel petitioners, Shri N.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - Nagar Nigam, Bareilly.
2. This writ petition is preferred for following principal relief:
"i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to pay the fair compensation amount to the petitioners four times at the current circle rate of the land in respect of illegally made a building by the respondent concern, over the petitioners gatas no 948/1 & 949/1 area 1000 square meter, situated at Village- Nekpur, Tehsil & District Bareilly.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners according under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and given fair compensation amount to the petitioners four times at the current circle rate of the land.
iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to provide the fair compensation under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 four times @ of current circle rate of the land and gave additional compensation to the petitioners from year 2020 till the date of provide compensation including interest in respect of the gatas nos.948/1 & 949/1 area 1000 square meter situated at Village Nekpur, Tehsil & District Bareilly.
iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to consider the claim of the petitioners within specific and stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
v) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to proceed without following due process of law against the will of the petitioners.
vi) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to proceed without following due process of law against the will of the petitioners.
vii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the Judgment and order dated 18.04.2006, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.21081 of 2006 (Kamla Prasad & Others vs State of U.P.and Others) and order dated 09.05.2019 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 14473 of 2019 (Gayatri Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P and 2 Others) which has been passed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. The record reflects that the petitioners are residents of Village Nekpur, District Bareilly. Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Sanchita Patel, purchased 184.78 sq. m. of land of Gata No. 948/1 through a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2013. Petitioner No. 2, Smt. Laung Sri, purchased 184.78 sq. m. of Gata No. 949/1 on 24.09.2013. Petitioner No. 3, Mukendra Singh, purchased two plots of 209.03 sq. m. each on 01.06.2013 and 16.04.2013. Petitioner No. 4, Pushpendra Singh, purchased two plots of 209.03 sq. m. each on 27.04.2013 and 10.07.2013. Copies of the sale deeds have been collectively annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. All the petitioners purchased the aforesaid land from one Kunwer Subhash Patel.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that by order dated 18.09.2020, the District Magistrate, Bareilly transferred certain ceiling land in Khata No. 878 free of cost to the Zila Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Vibhag. Taking undue advantage, the respondents illegally constructed a building over approximately 1000 sq. m. of the petitioners? land (Gata Nos. 948/1 & 949/1) without their consent or payment of compensation. The petitioners raised objections and submitted representations, including a notice dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure-3). Despite this, the authorities, in collusion with the seller, initiated exchange proceedings without the petitioners? consent. In support, reliance has been placed on the proposal report submitted by the Lekhpal on 12.04.2021 on the basis of spot inspection, followed by another report dated 05.06.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, being bona fide purchasers, are entitled to protection of their property rights. They are housewives and farmers whose livelihood depends on agriculture, and the illegal encroachment has caused them grave hardship. The respondents? actions are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Act, 2013. It is urged that the petitioners? claims deserve to be redressed by the competent authority.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the State Government issued a detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, providing that in case the claimant files a claim supported with requisite documents, the same shall be considered by the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate compensation in the light of the Act, 2013. He, therefore, submits that the matter may be relegated to the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate compensation.
7. Per contra, Shri N.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Shri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent ? Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, opposed the relief on the ground that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil/revenue court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Considering the factual situation and the reports placed before this Court, it is evident that certain land had been allotted in favour of Zila Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Vibhag (respondent No. 4). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter deserves to be considered by the District Level Committee.
9. Accordingly, in the event the petitioners approach the District Level Committee within two weeks from today, the Committee shall proceed to consider their claims. In case a spot inspection for actual measurement of the land is required for arriving at a conclusion, the same shall be conducted within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
September 22, 2025
NLY
