Pradeep Kumar and 15 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 5 & 6 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4.

¶11

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:

¶12

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to determine the compensation of the land, trees and crops of the petitioners being utilized/damaged for the construction of Transmission Line of 220 KV from District-Saharanpur to District Shamli and provide adequate compensation to the petitioners as per guidelines issued by Union of India, Ministry of Power, New Delhi vide its circular/Government orders dated 15.10.2015, 14.06.2024 and 21.03.2025.

¶13

( ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent authorities not to construct the transmission line over the plots of the petitioners till the entire compensation of land, trees and crops are being provided to them.

¶14

(iii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the tenure holders/land owners of their respective plots over which the respondents authorities are constructing Transmission Line of 220 KV from District Saharanpur vila Muzaffar Nagar upto District Shamli.

¶16

WRIC No. 20077 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities are not paying the compensation of the land, trees and the crops of the petitioners being used for the construction of the said Transmission Line as per guidelines issued by Union of India, Ministry of Power, New Delhi vide its circular/Government orders dated 15.10.2015, 14.06.2024 and 21.03.2025. The petitioners in this respect submitted several representations to the respondent authorities but no heed has been paid on the same.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no useful would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent nos.5 & 6 to consider the grievance of the petitioners.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, we dispose off the writ petition permitting each petitioners to file separate representation under Rule 3 (2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 ventilating their grievances before the respondent nos. 5-District Magistrate, Shamli & respondent no.6-District Magistrate, Saharanpur along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners, concerned respondent authority shall pass separate orders on the representation of each petitioners strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to each petitioners within a period of two months thereafter.

¶21

November 4, 2025 NS

¶22

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Careerlabs Technologies Private Limited and Another vs Ankit Saxena and Another

Anita Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akanksha Yadav vs Union of India and 2 Others

Rahul Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhawati Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others