Smt. Chitra vs State of U.P. and 7 Other

Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief :

¶11

"a) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the the respondent No. 3 to provide compensation along with interest for the land acquired by respondent No. 3 for the purpose of National Highway.

¶12

b) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 to award exemplary cost incurred by the petitioner for approaching this Hon'ble Court for getting the order quashed by means of which the name of the petitioner was deleted from the Khatauni."

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance upon the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned

¶14

WRIC No. 43501 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Single Judge in Writ C No.38966 of 2024 Smt. Chitra vs. State of U.P. through Secretary (Revenue) and 7 others wherein petitioner had challenged the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance & Revenue, Bulandshahr in Case No.797 of 2022, under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the order passed by the Court Commissioner of Administration-I dated 11.07.2024, Additional Meerut Mandal, District Meerut, in Case No.153 of 2023, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The learned Single Judge vide an order dated 29.05.2025 has already set aside the said order and in light of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is claimed that the petitioner is having the transferable rights and her rights have been crystallized under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and she may not be negated the rightful claim of a compensation as the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 has attained finality. He submits that as the petitioner's holding has been utilized for road widening by the NHAI, the adequate compensation be accorded in accordance with law.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 on the instructions received submits that for the acquisition, compensation has already been deposited to the S.L.A.O., it is open to the petitioner to press the relief before the S.L.A.O. in accordance with law.

¶18

Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents fairly submits that in absence of any instruction, at this stage, he is not in a position to make any categorical statement whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation or not. However, in light of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, it is open to the petitioner to press an appropriate relief before the S.L.A.O. in accordance with law.

¶19

Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, upon careful examination of the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ C No.38966 of 2024, we find that the petitioner has a rightful claim for adequate compensation in accordance with law as her rights are crystallized qua the land in question. In case there is no other impediment, we find that the application of the petitioner is to be processed in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

WRIC No. 43501 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

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

¶24

December 10, 2025 Priya

¶25

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

Smt. Chitra v. State of U.P. and 7 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chitra v. State of U.P. and 7 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farhat Jahan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tipu Sultan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siddhant Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarvesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Udaiveer vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Amar Nath Singh vs State of U.P. and 8 Others