Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Secy. Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. v. Ram Khelawan and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2025FAFO/395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court partially admitted the appeal from order challenging a land acquisition award. It held that the objection regarding the award being a consent award is a matter of merits and not a preliminary bar to maintainability. The operation of the award was stayed pending deposit of the award amount.

What did the court decide?

Operation of the award dated 24.09.2009 stayed subject to deposit of the entire sum under the award within eight weeks.

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Secy. Vipin Khand… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 395 of 2025

¶3

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Secy. Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko.

¶4

pn an om agar o.	Versus .....Appellant(s)
Ram Khelawan And Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Counsel for Respondent(s) :	Bhanu Bajpai, Mukund Tewari Amardeep Yadav, Harsh Vardhan Singh

¶5

Court No. - 7

¶6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Mukund Tewari learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Vijay Dixit learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no.1.

¶8

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 indicating that in the award which is under challenge, in para 24 the reference court has recorded that the State as well as appellant had consented to the rates which have been taken note of while granting the compensation and since the award is a consent award, hence, the appeal does not lie.

¶9

The aforesaid submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the appellant on the premise that the alleged exemplars from where the said rate is said to be derived, is of sale deed which were void as there were post the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. It has also been urged that the said exemplar are not of the proximate area which was under acquisition coupled with the fact that proximate sale deeds which were filed by the appellant also indicated that the rates which were prevailing at the said point of time ranged between 15 to 50 sq ft, however, the award which has been made it has given the rate of 150 sq.ft. which is prime facie exorbitant.

¶10

It is urged that the said sale deeds could not be placed on record of the

¶11

FAFO No. 395 of 2025

¶12

¶13

reference court, however, the same has been placed along with this instant appeal along with an application for filing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

¶14

Whether there was a binding consent as well as the fact whether the counsel could have given the concession is also a subject matter which has to be examined. Therefore, this objection cannot be treated as a preliminary objection to the extent that it makes the appeal not maintainable hence, to that extent it is not relevant at this stage, however, it will be open for the learned counsel for the respondent to raise the said issue at the time of hearing and it shall be considered by the court. As far as the application under Order 41 Rule 27 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent shall file their objection within three weeks.

¶15

Admit.

¶16

Issue notice.

¶17

Steps to be taken by 07.10.2025.

¶18

Since large number of appeals are engaging the attention of this Court, relating to the same scheme, list and connect this appeal along with FAFO no.374 of 2025 showing the name of Sri Vijay Dixit as counsel for the respondent.

¶19

As an interim measure, it is provided that subject to deposit of the entire sum under award within a period of eight weeks from today, the operation of the award dated 24.09.2009 shall remain stayed.

¶20

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶21

September 26, 2025 Harshita

¶22

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

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Secy. Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. v. Ram Khelawan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Secy. Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. v. Ram Khelawan and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Methelash Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko and 5 Others

Smt. Sweeti @ Sweta Gupta vs Sudhir @ Anurag Gupta

Fragrance Dream Homes Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Gaurav Tyagi vs Soni Srivastava

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Its Regional Manager Kanpur vs Rakesh and 4 Others

U.P. State Road Tranport Corporation Thru. Regional Manager Distt. Kanpur vs Rakesh and 4 Others

Swarn Kumari @ Swarn Singh @ Shalini Singh vs Shri Shakti Singh Chauhan