Disposed¶20

Mata Bux Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2025WRIC/3283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition; automatic lapse under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act; no award/supplementary award for 2.123 Hectare (13 plots of villages Ratapur, one plot of village Akhtiyarpur, one plot of Baraipur); award dated 30.05.2009 covering 8.816 Hectare; no State Government exemption or release order; total compensation deposited 08.12.2008; possession taken 30.05.2009 and 06.06.2009 deemed under Section 16 and not Section 17(1); section 17 urgency invoked dispensing with section 5-A inquiry; proposal by Vice Chairman of Raebareli Development Authority accepted by State Government; Raebareli Development Authority; judgment reserved 09.12.2025; WRIT-C 3283 of 2024; Mata Bux Singh v. State of U.P.

What the court decided

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

Outcome

Disposed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2.123 Hectare of land (13 plots of villages Ratapur, one plot of village Akhtiyarpur and one plot of Baraipur), for which no award was passed, no possession taken and no supplementary award given more than two years after acquisition, stands lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, absent any State Government order of exemption or release. +2 more

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 3283 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 2) — Mata Bux Singh v. State of U.P. (through its Additional Chief Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Department) and 4 others; coram Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh, JJ.; hearing completed and judgment/order RESERVED on December 9, 2025. Answering the court's two queries, Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate for the Raebareli Development Authority, pointed to internal page-5 of the award dated 30.05.2009 showing the award covered only 8.816 Hectare, while 2.123 Hectare (13 plots of villages Ratapur, one plot of village Akhtiyarpur and one plot of Baraipur) was neither awarded nor possessed; he categorically stated there was no State Government order exempting or releasing that land and no supplementary award, submitting that the acquisition of that land lapsed automatically under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. He further stated total compensation was deposited on 08.12.2008, before the award (30.05.2009) and before possession (30.05.2009 and 06.06.2009), so that possession fell to be deemed under Section 16 and not Section 17(1) of the Act; on the court's query as to why section 17 urgency was invoked and the section 5-A inquiry dispensed with despite regular procedure, counsel stated a proposal by the Vice Chairman of the Raebareli Development Authority had been accepted by the State Government, leaving the fuller answer to the State. NOTE FOR CITATION: this document records counsel's responses and a reservation of judgment only; no holding was pronounced by this court, and no precedent was cited.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3283 of 2024

Mata Bux Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuj Kudesia, Anand Shanker Asthana, Vikas Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Apoorva Tewari, Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, Ghaus Beg, Saharsh Srivastava

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶11

In response to the two queries made by this court on earlier occasion, Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, Advocate, has appeared for the Raebareli Development Authority. He has pointed out internal page-5 of the award dated 30.05.2009 and has stated that 13 plots of villages Ratapur, one plot of village Akhtiyarpur and one plot of Baraipur, total area admeasuring 2.123 Hectare were not taken possession of and award was declared only of 8.816 Hectare. He has also pointed out that keeping in view the statement made in the award at internal page-5 it is evident that no award having been declared for 2.123 Hectare of land, and more than two years having lapsed from the date of acquisition, even after declaration of award, and no supplementary award having been given, all acquisition shall lapse automatically in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. He has categorically stated that there is no order of the State Government for exemption of the said land from acquisition. There is no order of the State Government releasing such land after acquisition. No award was passed for 2.123 Hectare of land and no possession taken of such land.

¶12

It has also been stated in response to the second query made by this court that the total amount of compensation was deposited on 08.12.2008

¶13

WRIC No. 3283 of 2024

¶14

¶15

before declaration of award on 30.05.2009 and before taking of possession on 30.05.2009 and on 06.06.2009.

¶16

He has pointed out that since possession was taken after declaration of award, the acquisition would be deemed to have been made as per regular procedure of acquisition and such possession shall be deemed to have been taken under Section 16, and not under Section 17(1) of the Act.

¶17

This court has put specific query that in case the government had followed the regular procedure of making acquisition, then section 5-A inquiry could not have been dispensed with, but section 17 was invoked stating there was urgency and section 5-A inquiry was dispensed with. To this, learned Senior Counsel has fairly stated a proposal was made by the Vice Chairman of the Raebareli Development Authority, which was accepted by the State Government and the State Government would be in a better position to answer the query.

¶18

Sri Anand Shanker Asthana, Advocate, has stated that the petitioner has also given written submissions in the matter.

¶19

Hearing is complete.

¶20

Judgment/order is reserved.

¶21

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶22

December 9, 2025 A.Nigam

¶23

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Award dated 30.05.2009 declared over only 8.816 Hectare; internal page-5 of the award records that 13 plots of villages Ratapur, one plot of village Akhtiyarpur and one plot of Baraipur (total 2.123 Hectare) were not taken possession of.¶11
Prior proceeding
No award was passed and no possession was taken of the 2.123 Hectare of land.¶11
Prior proceeding
With more than two years lapsed from the date of acquisition even after declaration of award, and no supplementary award having been given, senior counsel for the Raebareli Development Authority submitted that all acquisition of the land shall lapse automatically under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.¶11
Prior proceeding
Counsel categorically stated there is no order of the State Government exempting the said land from acquisition, and no order releasing such land after acquisition.¶11
Prior proceeding
In response to the court's second query, counsel stated the total amount of compensation was deposited on 08.12.2008.¶12
Prior proceeding
The compensation deposit on 08.12.2008 preceded declaration of award on 30.05.2009 and preceded taking of possession on 30.05.2009 and 06.06.2009.¶15
Prior proceeding
Since possession was taken after declaration of award, counsel submitted the acquisition would be deemed made per regular procedure, with possession deemed taken under Section 16 and not under Section 17(1) of the Act.¶16
Prior proceeding
The court queried why, if the regular acquisition procedure had been followed (which would not permit dispensing with the section 5-A inquiry), section 17 was invoked stating urgency and the section 5-A inquiry was dispensed with.¶17
Prior proceeding
Senior counsel stated that a proposal was made by the Vice Chairman of the Raebareli Development Authority, accepted by the State Government, and that the State Government would be better placed to answer the query.¶17
Prior proceeding
Counsel stated the petitioner had also given written submissions in the matter.¶18
Prior proceeding
Hearing was completed and the judgment/order was reserved.¶19

Mata Bux Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mata Bux Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Anoop Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sebu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Triveni Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P.

Amit @ Amit Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Mobeen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others