Umashankar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Umashankar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No direction for disbursement of compensation was issued; the petitioners were left open to agitate the claim before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the subsisting dispute between the parties and the pending cancellation-of-sale-deed proceedings, the respondent authorities should be directed to disburse to the petitioners, as recorded tenure holders, the compensation for the acquired land.

Court's answer

Considering the factual situation prevailing at this stage, the Court was not in a position to positively direct the authority to pass the appropriate order for disbursement of the compensation, given the subsisting inter-party dispute and the pending cancellation-of-sale-deed proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were left open to agitate the claim for disbursement of compensation before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.; decided 9 October 2025) disposed of WRIT - C No. 15657 of 2025 in which the petitioner purchasers of land (Arazi No. 456ka/.3720 hectare, bought from Sri Ram s/o Raj Vansh on 19.07.1996 and mutated on 30.06.2003) sought a direction to the State respondents to disburse compensation to them as recorded tenure holders. Their recall application under Section 209(Ja) before the Naib Tehsildar, Bayalsi, District Jaunpur (Case No. RST/7754/2024) had already succeeded, the order dated 30.06.2003 having been recalled on 01.01.2025. However, on instructions dated 02.08.2025 of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jaunpur, the respondents declined immediate disbursal, citing the persisting dispute between the parties and the pending cancellation-of-sale-deed suit, Case No. 255 of 2025 (Ghanshyam Vs. Om Shankar and others); the parties themselves had prayed that disbursal be restrained, the matter had not been stayed by any competent court, and the authority proposed instead to deposit the compensation qua the land in question with the competent court. Holding that it was not in a position to positively direct the authority to pass the appropriate order for disbursement, the Court left the petitioners open to agitate the claim before the competent forum in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition. No monetary amount is stated in the judgment.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 15657 of 2025

Umashankar And 2 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Respon	dent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anaam, Kumar	Jitendra	Upadhyay,	Suraj
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 29

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

Heard Sri Jitendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as the petitioners have purchased the land bearing Arazi No. 456ka/.3720 hectare from one Sri Ram s/o Raj Vansh on 19.07.1996 and accordingly the name of the petitioners were also mutated in the revenue record on 30.06.2003. He submits that due to mistake by the revenue officials, some other names were recorded whereas, the erstwhile owner had sold the entire his holdings in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a recall application along with delay condonation application against the order dated 11.04.1997 before the Naib Tehsildar, Bayalsi, District Jaunpur, which was registered as Case No. RST/7754/2024 computerized case no.T202414360507754, under Section 209(Ja) to recall the order dated 30.06.2003 and consequently vide an order dated 01.01.2025, order was recalled.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, states that the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation on the recorded tenure holder and the direction be issued to the the respondents to disburse the compensation.

Per contra, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing

WRIC No. 15657 of 2025

2

Counsel has placed detailed instructions dated 02.08.2025 sent by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jaunpur indicating therein that dispute viz-aviz between the parties is still there as the cancellation of a sale deed in Case No.255 of 2025 (Ghanshyam Vs. Om Shankar and others) is pending consideration. Only in this backdrop, the respondent authority had taken stand that the actual compensation cannot be disbursed and has also placed reliance on the representation moved by the petitioners. They had also made a request to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jaunpur wherein, they had prayed that the authority may not disburse the compensation. He submits that once the parties themselves have moved applications for restraining to disburse the compensation on account of dispute viz-a-viz between the parties till date and the matter has not been stayed by any competent court as such, the authority has no other option except to deposit the compensation qua the land in question to the competent court.

Considering the factual situation at this stage, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not in a position to positively direct the authority to pass the appropriate order for disbursement. However, we leave it open to the petitioners to agitate the same before the competent forum in accordance with law.

With the instant leave, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

October 9, 2025

Priya

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad