Allahabad High Court
Sarju Yadav And Another vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 12 September, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:162055-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 4026 of 2014
Sarju Yadav And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Krishna Gopal, Rahul Sahai
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.S.G.I.(2014/8696), Pranjal Mehrotra
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for National Highways Authority of India (respondent no.2) and Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent no.3.
2. The instant writ petition has been instituted in the year 2014 for direction commanding the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to decide the petitioners' representation/objection dated 01.7.2013, as required under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Right to Fare Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per reports of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal, the petitioners' 1372 square meters extra land of Gata Nos.924 and 925 situated in Village Thiriakhetal, Tehsil Meerganj, District Bareilly has been utilised by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for widening/four laning of National Highway No.24 (Moradabad-Bareilly Section) and even the claim of the petitioners had been duly acknowledged by NHAI. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on paragraph nos.9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit dated 14.04.2019 filed by NHAI. He submits that only on account of report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) dated 20.10.2014, the compensation, which was accorded @ Rs.4500/- per square meter plus 10% total compensation of Rs.67,91,400/-, has not been disbursed to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the report of the ADM (Administration) dated 20.10.2014, an objection has been raised by the revenue officials that the vendor belonged to Scheduled Caste category. The said report has also been nullified by the Sub Divisional Officer, Meerganj vide order dated 28.12.2018 passed in Case No.425/2015 (Saraju Yadav vs. State of UP) under Section 166/167 of UP ZA & LR Act, which is appended as RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed on 13.12.2019. He submits that the said aforesaid order has attained finality and at no point of time, the same had been challenged. As such, there is no other impediment not to release the compensation, which was quantified in the year 2014. As the matter is pending consideration, at this stage the direction be issued to the respondents to pay the compensation in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that in the counter affidavit, the NHAI had taken a categorical stand that for the road widening, the petitioners' holding had been utilized and accordingly, due compensation had also been quantified to Rs.67,91,400/- but merely on the basis of report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) dated 20.10.2014, the actual compensation could not be disbursed to the petitioners. He submits that as the NHAI had already deposited the compensation, he has no objection, in case the direction is issued for release of the amount in favour of the petitioners by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' holding had been utilized by the NHAI in the road widening, which has been duly acknowledged by the respondent authority and on account of the communication made by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) dated 20.10.2014, the actual compensation had not been disbursed to the petitioners. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been brought on record that the proceeding under Section 166/167 of UP ZA & LR Act had already been finalized in favour of the petitioners. Nothing is brought on record to show that there is any other impediment not to release the amount of compensation in favour of the petitioners and merely in view of the report dated 20.10.2014, the rightful claim of the petitioners cannot be denied. Even otherwise, the report dated 20.10.2014 has no significance in view of the order dated 28.12.2018, which had been passed in Case No.425 of 2015 under Section 166/167 of UP ZA & LR Act and finalised in favour of the petitioners.
7. As the instant proceeding is pending since 2014, in the interest of justice, it is provided that in case, the petitioners approach to the SLAO for disbursement of the compensation, he shall consider the same and accord reprieve to the petitioners, forthwith. It is further observed that in case the petitioners are aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, which were fixed way back in the year 2014, they would be at liberty to agitate the same before the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of National Highways Act, 1956.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) September 12, 2025 RKP