Allahabad High Court

WRIC/36934/2026 of LAL CHANDRA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 15 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36934 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 36934 of 2026

Court No. - 29

HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with prayer to issue direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Varanasi (respondent no.3) to consider grievance of the petitioners and decide the application dated 20.05.2026 expeditiously within some stipulated time.

3. At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel informed to the Court that for redressal of grievance of tenure holders, claiming certain right/title over their land, the State Government had issued detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which provides that in case the claimant files claim supported with requisite documents, the same would be considered by the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate compensation in the light of Act 2013. He submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of petitioners within a reasonable time and submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

4. The position of law is well-established that in view of Article 300A and 31A of the Constitution of India, the owner of land can be divested only in accordance with law after appropriately compensating, if such land is required by the State for public purpose. Since, such power of eminent Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Saroj, Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Lal Chandra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

domain is not in dispute, we need not advert the matter at this stage in view of Government Order dated 12.05.2016.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed in the instant matter, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representation along with true attested copy of the instant order before District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks. In the event, such representation is made, the District Level Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioners and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter. September 16, 2026 M.S. Ansari WRIC No. 36934 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead