Disposed¶17

Khaliq Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025WRIC/14393/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khaliq Ahmad v State of U.P. and 5 Others; WRIT - C No. 14393 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Mahesh Chandra Tripathi J; Kunal Ravi Singh J; decided 09-10-2025; land compensation inadequate; mandamus to decide Annexure no. 8 applications before authority concerned; compensation per present valuation / circle rate; 64% compensation allowed in other cases; compensation already deposited before competent court; release forthwith absent legal impediment; writ petition disposed of; supplementary affidavit taken on record.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; writ petition disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner approaches the competent court in accordance with law, the deposited compensation shall be released forthwith unless there is some other legal impediment. ¶17

Khaliq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should issue commanding the respondents to decide the petitioner's applications (Annexure no. 8) pending before the authority concerned within a stipulated period, or alternatively to pay compensation for the petitioner's land at its present valuation as per the circle rate of the area. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Considering the factual position and the State's instructions that adequate compensation has already been deposited before the competent court, the Court was not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

¶17

Key takeaways

If the petitioner approaches the competent court in accordance with law, the compensation shall be released forthwith, provided there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.), WRIT - C No. 14393 of 2025, Khaliq Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, disposed of on October 9, 2025. The petitioner, aggrieved that adequate compensation had not been paid for his holding, sought (i) a mandamus directing the respondents to decide his pending applications (Annexure no. 8) within a stipulated period or to pay compensation at present circle-rate valuation of the land, and (ii) payment of compensation at the 64% level allowed by the Hon'ble Court in other cases. Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, placed detailed instructions on record asserting that adequate compensation had already been deposited before the competent court and was open to the petitioner to receive under law. After taking a supplementary affidavit on record, the Court declined to proceed further, disposed of the petition, and observed that on the petitioner approaching the competent court in accordance with law the compensation 'shall be released forthwith, if there is no other legal impediment.' No statute was invoked and no precedent was cited or engaged with; no quantum was adjudicated.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14393 of 2025

¶3

Khaliq Ahmad

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Hriday Singh	Narayan Pandey, Narendra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 29

¶6

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief:

¶10

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the applications of the petitioner i.e. (Annexure no.8) moved before the authority concern within stipulated period or to pay the compensation the petitioner land in question in accordance present valuation of the land in question as per circle rate of the of area so that justice may be done.

¶11

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay the compensation as per 64% allowed by this Hon'ble Court in other cases of the compensation so that the petitioner's right may be saved by this Hon'ble Court."

¶12

In pith and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that adequate

¶13

WRIC No. 14393 of 2025

¶14

¶15

compensation has not been paid in respect of his holding.

¶16

Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, has placed detailed instructions on record. A copy of the same has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated therein that adequate compensation has already been deposited before the competent court, and it is always open to the petitioner to receive the same in accordance with law.

¶17

Considering the factual position, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter in view of the aforesaid instructions. In case the petitioner approaches the competent court in accordance with law, the compensation shall be released forthwith, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶18