Dismissed

Sharda Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021WRIC/823/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging road construction over private land. Finding no cogent material on record to establish that the road was being constructed over the disputed land, the court held there was no cause of action to seek a mandamus under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed with liberty to file permanent and mandatory injunction in court of law in case of alleged eviction.

Sharda Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 823 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sharda Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Yadav,Devbratt Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶3

Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners.

¶4

Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the State.

¶5

Alleging construction of road by the respondents over the land being Plot No.230 ad-measuring 0.0610 hectare, Plot No.231 ad-measuring 0.6400 hectare, Plot No.232 Ja ad-measuring 0.8770 hectare, Plot No.245 admeasuring 0.1660 hectare, Plot No.246, ad-measuring 1.2180 hectare, Plot No.247, ad-measuring 0.4170 hectare, Plot No.248, ad-measuring 0.0490 hectare situated in village Raipur, Pargana Mungra, Tehsil Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to construct road over the said land without taking recourse to stipulations contained under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as well as National Highways Act, 1956.

¶6

True it is, as guaranteed under Article 300-A that, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. However, in the instant case there is no cogent material on record to establish that the road is being constructed by the respondents over the land in question, as would give rise to cause of action to the petitioner to seek a mandamus as sought for in the present petition.

¶7

In view where of we are not inclined to cause any indulgence in the writ petition under Article 226 of the petitioner of India.

¶8

The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to file permanent and mandatory injunction in the court of law in case of any alleged eviction.

¶9

With these observations the petition stands dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 N Tiwari

¶11

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)

Sharda Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nishant Traders Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Lilesh Kumar Singh and 8 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

M/S Kanahiya Lal and Sons Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brahma Singh and Another Vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and 3 Others

Yogendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others