Amit Mishra Vs Union of India and 9 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 494 of 2026

Amit Mishra

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and 9 others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pavan Kumar, Laxami Pati
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., Himanshu Pandey, A.K. Goyal (A.C.S.C.), Abhishek Srivastava, Gaurav Bishan

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶8

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking direction to the respondents to provide financial assistance equivalent to 625 days of minimum wages to eligible residents of the eight affected villages in terms of the Land Acquisition Policy dated 02.06.2011 and directing the respondents employment of one eligible member of each family rendered landless due to land transfer for establishment of NUPPL, commensurate with qualification and further reliefs.

¶9

It is inter alia claimed that the petitioner, during construction of NUPPL, formed NUPPL Contract Workers Union, joined as a social worker under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is discharging his duties as General Secretary, based on which, it is claimed that the petition has been filed in public interest.

¶10

The respondents have produced instructions inter alia indicating that the entire issue in the petition pertains to compensation, rehabilitation & resettlement benefits, valuation and alleged entitlement under the Government Orders, which falls squarely under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and is subject to adjudication before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority ('LARRA'), Kanpur Nagar. It is indicated that out of 1032 landowners, 78 landowners have sought reference before the Collector and the same stood referred to LARRA for adjudication and are pending consideration.

¶11

WPIL No. 494 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

Further indications have been made that the majority of landowners have voluntarily entered into consent agreements, and have received compensation under the R&R benefits and the petitioner therefore, has no locus standi seeking to question the settlement between the NUPPL and the landowners, based on the policy in question.

¶14

Copy of the instructions was supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

Today, counsel for the petitioner prays for time for the purpose of seeking further instructions in the matter regarding the status and the stage of the proceedings pending before the LARRA Court.

¶16

Filing of the present petition at the instance of the petitioner, who admittedly is General Secretary of NUPPL Contract Workers Union, in light of the fact that those affected by the acquisition and aggrieved have already approached the statutory forum i.e. LARRA Court for their grievances, seeking to raise issues on behalf of those who have not objected to the receipt of the compensation etc., cannot be countenanced.

¶17

We do not find any public interest involved in the matter at the instance of the petitioner. The petition is therefore, dismissed .

¶18

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶19

May 5, 2026 AHA/Jyotsana

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Mishra v. Union of India and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Mishra v. Union of India and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Kumar Shrivastava Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Ravindra Ahlawat @ Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd Ishmail vs State of Up and 4 Others

C/M Dunka Junior High School Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Khalid and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others