Govind Nath Mishra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024WRIC/7658/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus against demolition of their Gonda house for NH-330 widening without acquisition or compensation, and payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 2013. Court noted PWD, not NHAI, was doing the work, that key PWD officials were not impleaded, sought instructions from the Executive Engineer, and adjourned the case to next week.

What the court decided

AI extract

Govind Nath Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7658 of 2024 Petitioner :- Govind Nath Mishra And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambrish Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Shri Sarvesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

¶7

"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties not to demolish the petitioner's house no.468/306 situated at Mohalla Maharajganj, District-Gonda without following any due procedure prescribed by law, in the interest of justice.

¶8

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the mandamus commanding to opposite party to pay the compensation of petitioners in pursuance of extension of National Highway-330 Ayodhya via Gonda Balrampur road of Land Acquisition Act 2013 situated at Village-Gird Gonda, Tehsil & District-Gonda."

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that his father had purchased certain land in village Girhd, District Gonda from its recorded tenure holder in 1981 and has constructed a house as well as the shop over it. The petitioner has been depositing house tax, water tax and other dues in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda. All of a sudden, a notice has been affixed at a public place in the area saying that the land will be used for expansion/widening of National Highway 330 (Ayodhya-Gonda-Balrampur Marg) no acquisition has been done by the National Highway Authority of India. No compensation has been paid to the petitioner.

¶10

Shri Sarvesh Dubey on the basis of oral instructions states that National Highway Authority of India has not acquired any land or village Girhd Gonda. The PWD is conducting the expansion/widening work.

¶11

We have noticed that from the array of parties that the petitioner has not impleaded the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary/Chief Secretary, PWD. He has also not impleaded the Executive Engineer of the Construction

¶12

Division, PWD, Ayodhya.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents shall seek specific instructions from the Executive Engineer of the Construction Division, PWD, Ayodhya/Gonda.

¶14

List this case in the next week as fresh.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Pks

¶16

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Govind Nath Mishra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Govind Nath Mishra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Biotech International Ltd. Thr.Its Auth.Representativ Vs State of U.P. Thr.Prin.Secy.Medi.and Health and Family Welf.andORS

Madhuri Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Babasahab Bhimrao Ambedkar University Thru. Registrar and 2 Others Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Ministry. Education New Delhi and 2 Others

Ashutosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health and Family Welfare Lko.

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 8 Others

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Its Sachiv Vansh Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others