Omkar and 3 Others vs State of U,P, and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Omkar and 3 Others vs State of U,P, and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction that respondent no. 3 shall not interfere in the petitioners' possession over the subject land (Gata No. 648) except in accordance with law; no express direction issued in respect of prayer (ii) (decision of the application dated 10.11.2024).

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 3 should be restrained from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession of the land comprising Gata No. 648, area 0.5870 hectare, situated at revenue village Bhatta, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar (prayer (i)). +2 more

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction that respondent no. 3 will not interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the subject land except in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

It stands admitted by respondent no. 3 (through the written instructions of its Tehsildar dated 13.12.2024 and the corrective corrigendum dated 10.12.2024) that the subject land was not acquired and that its offer of additional compensation to the petitioners was made on account of a clerical mistake, now corrected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 40294 of 2024) filed by Omkar and three others, owners of Gata No. 648 (area 0.5870 hectare), revenue Bhatta, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, praying (i) that the respondents not interfere with their peaceful possession, and (ii) that respondent no. 3 be directed to decide their application dated 10.11.2024 (filed 12.11.2024), prompted by respondent no. 3's offer of 64.7% additional compensation. The petitioners asserted the plot was never acquired. Written instructions dated 13.12.2024 submitted by Tehsildar, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority conceded that the subject land had been included in the additional-compensation proposal owing to a clerical mistake, subsequently corrected by corrigendum dated 10.12.2024, establishing that the land was not acquired and the compensation offer was erroneous. The High Court (Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.) accordingly disposed of the petition on 27.1.2025 by directing respondent no. 3 not to interfere in the petitioners' possession of the subject land except in accordance with law; no separate direction was issued on prayer (ii).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13649-DB

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40294 of 2024

Petitioner :- Omkar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U,P, And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dubey,Rishu Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Sharma,C.S.C.

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

1. The following prayers have been made in the instant petition:-

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners' land comprising of Gata No. 648 area 0.5870 Hect. situated at revenue Bhatta, Tehsil Sadar and District Gautam Budh Nagar.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the application dated 10.11.2024 filed on 12.11.2024."

2. The case of the petitioners is that subject plot was never acquired and therefore, there was no occasion to offer payment of 64.7% as additional compensation, as is being done by respondent no. 3.

3. Tehsildar, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority has submitted written instructions dated 13.12.2024 in which it is admitted that the subject land was included in the proposal relating to additional compensation on account of clerical mistake. The same has been corrected by a corrigendum of 10.12.2024. Thus, it is admitted to respondent no. 3 that the subject land was not acquired and the offer made by it to the petitioners pertaining to additional compensation was on account of clerical mistake and the same has been corrected.

4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by providing that respondent no. 3 will not interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the subject land except in accordance with law.

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 27.1.2025 gp

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad