Kalawati vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kalawati vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent no.2 with a true attested copy of the order; respondent no.2 to transmit it to the District Level Committee (per Government Order dated 12.05.2016) for decision in accordance with law within twelve weeks, after granting affected parties opportunity to lead evidence and after proper survey of the land. The Court did not itself adjudicate the acquisition/compensation claim.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents utilised part of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra/Gata no.666, Shaha urf Peepalgaon, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj, for widening a public road without formal acquisition and payment of compensation.

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the controversy, the matter requires to be considered by the District Level Committee in terms of Government Order dated 12.05.2016, to which learned counsel for both parties had no objection.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent no.2 along with a true attested copy of the order.

Key takeaways

Respondent no.2 shall transmit the representation to the District Level Committee for decision in accordance with law within twelve weeks, after granting the affected parties opportunity to lead evidence and after a proper survey of the land.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.) disposed of Writ-C No. 33799 of 2024 (order dated 6.1.2025) filed by Kalawati, who purchased Khasra no.666 at Shaha urf Peepalgaon, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj, by registered sale deed dated 22.07.2016, alleging that the respondents used part of her plot in widening a public road without formal acquisition or compensation. An interim order of 18.12.2024 had recorded that Gata No. 666 stood jointly recorded in private names (not the State) and directed the Executive Engineer (Provincial Division), PWD Prayagraj, to file a personal affidavit with supporting evidence and the sajra plan. On 6.1.2025 the affidavit asserted the road exists over Gata no.562 and the petitioner's land of Gata no.666 was unaffected, while the sajra plan showed part of Plot no.666 adjacent to the road; the petitioner disputed this. Without adjudicating the rival claims, the Court referred the controversy to the District Level Committee under Government Order dated 12.05.2016, disposing of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent no.2, to be transmitted for decision within twelve weeks after granting affected parties opportunity to lead evidence and after a proper survey of the land.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2202-DB

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33799 of 2024

Petitioner :- Kalawati Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Sharma,Ram Bhusan Diwakar,Ram Sumer Chaudhary

Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar,C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

The case of the petitioner is that she purchased Khasra no.666 situated at Shaha urf Peepalgaon, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Prayagraj by registered sale deed dated 22.07.2016. Her name was duly entered in the revenue records in place of her vendor. A copy of the khatauni evidencing the same has been annexed. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents carried out widening of a public road and in the process, they have utilized some part of the land of the petitioner without any formal acquisition and payment of compensation.

On 18.12.2024, the following order was passed:

"1. Gata No. 666 is jointly recorded in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner and other persons, but not the State.

In the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer (Provincial Division), Public Works Department, Prayagraj, it is stated that the construction of road is being undertaken over Government land. No documentary evidence has been annexed to reveal how any part of Gata No. 666 or adjoining land is owned by the Government.

The Executive Engineer (Provincial Division), Public Works Department, Prayagraj is directed to file his personal affidavit and disclose the correct facts. He will annex all supporting evidence along with the sajra plan of the village.

List as fresh on 6.1.2025."

On matter being taken up today, learned Standing Counsel has placed on record the personal affidavit of Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Prayagraj, according to which, the road exists over Gata no.562 and the land of the petitioner of Gata no.666 has not got affected thereby. Copy of the sajra plan has been annexed, which indicates that a part of Plot no.666, which is owned by the petitioner, is situated next to the road. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have utilized the land of the petitioner in widening the existing road.

Having regard to the nature of controversy, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be considered by District Level Committee in terms of Government Order dated 12.05.2016 to which, learned counsel for the parties also have no objection.

Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent no.2 alongwith true attested copy of the instant order and in which event, respondent no.2 will transmit the same to the District Level Committee for being decided in accordance with law within next twelve weeks, after granting opportunity to the affected parties to lead evidence and after proper survey of the land.

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Ankit.

Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad