Allahabad High Court
State Of Up And 2 Others vs Baijnath on 8 April, 2026
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:77100-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 54 of 2026
State of UP and 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Baijnath
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Abhay Raj Yadav
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the applicants/respondents and Sri Abhay Raj, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner.
2. The instant review application is preferred for reviewing the order dated 27.11.2025 on the ground that no time was accorded to the State respondents to file an objection and the State applicants are aggrieved with the observations so made in paragraph-4 of the said order dated 27.11.2025 passed in Writ C No.14080 of 2025 (Baijnath vs. Union of India and 4 others).
3. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 27.11.2025 is reproduced herein under:-
"1. Heard Shri S. Shukla holding brief of Shri Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri R.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 to determine the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the land having Gata No.819 (Min.) measuring an area about 0.525 Hectare situated at Village Delaura, Pargana and Tehsil Karwi, District Chitrakoot in favour of the petitioner in accordance with present rate and ensure the payment of compensation so determined to the petitioner forthwith.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to decide the representation dated 09.01.2025 moved by the petitioner for determination and release of compensation award.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to create any third party right or to make any construction over the land in question during the pendency of the present writ petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of averments contained in writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit dated 12.11.2025, submits that the land in question was "Matrook" (not recorded in any category). Later on the said land was recorded as "Banjar" [Shreni 5 (Anga)] by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karvi, which is reflected from the extract of Khatauni 1400-1405, appended as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is contended that the land was never allotted to respondent no.5-Bhaiya as lease. The respondent no.5 filed a case bearing no.54/17.4.96/19.6.96 (report Lekhpal v. Bhaiya) under Section 122-B (4) (f) of UPZA & LR Act. Thereafter, after passing of 10 years the respondent no.5 became bhumidhr with transferable right over the said land vide order dated 1.12.2020 passed by SDM, Karvi in Case No.03868/2020 (State of U.P. v. Bhaiya) under Section 76 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Admittedly, the said order has not been assailed by the respondents. Later on the respondent no.5 has transferred the land in favour of the petitioner through gift deed dated 17.12.2024, which is appended as Annexure No.SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, states that notification for construction of road was issued under the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short "Act, 1956") and as such direction be issued to the respondents to accord due compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. Considering the factual situation, we find that at this stage it is not in dispute that the petitioner is having absolute title and right over the land in question. In case, the land in question is utilised for construction of national highway, definitely the petitioner is entitled for due compensation under the Act, 1956 in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of."
4. So far as the observations made in paragraph-4 of the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2025 is concerned, the matter was disposed of at the admission stage without hearing any objection from the State respondents. As the applicants State are only inclined to review the order dated 27.11.2025 to the extent that in case the respondent authority processes the claim of the petitioner, at the said stage the objection of the State respondents may also be considered as certain subsequent events have happened which need to be taken into consideration by the concerned authority while deciding the claim.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent has no objection to the said prayer.
6. In the facts and circumstances, the order dated 27.11.2025 is modified to the extent that while deciding the claim of the petitioner, the competent authority shall also consider the objection putforth by the State respondents and then proceed to decide the claim. It is made clear that authority shall not be influenced with any observations made by this Court in the order dated 27.11.2025 and the claim would be decided independently after hearing the version of the State applicants.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the instant review application stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) April 8, 2026 Sumit S