Disposed¶19

Mahesh Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026WRIC/14594/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Road widening compensation Varanasi; Vimal Automobiles proprietor; holding 101.70 sq m; commercial rate Rs.90,000/- per sq m versus Rs.30,000/- per sq m offered; representation dated 22.04.2025 to District Magistrate; mandamus for compensation Rs.1,83,60,000/- plus two boundary walls, two big trees, one monolith signage; State plea no record of business purpose; writ disposed with consent without deciding merits; direction to decide pending application within six weeks of certified copy.

What did the court decide?

Direction that, in case the petitioner's application is still pending consideration, the concerned Authority shall consider and decide it within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order; no adjudication on merits or on the compensation claimed. ¶19

Mahesh Chand vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's holding affected by the proposed road widening should be compensated at the commercial rate of Rs.90,000/- per square meter instead of the rate of Rs.30,000/- per square meter at which the respondent Authority was inclined to settle. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The Court declined to enter into the merits of the compensation dispute, stating it was not inclined to advert on the merit of the case.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition was disposed of with an observation that if the petitioner's application is still pending consideration, the concerned Authority shall consider and decide it within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.), WRIT - C No. - 14594 of 2026, decided April 20, 2026: Petitioner, proprietor of Vimal Automobiles, Lalpur, Pandeypur, Varanasi, sought a mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Varanasi to decide his representation dated 22.04.2025 and release compensation of Rs.1,83,60,000/- together with compensation for two boundary walls, two big trees and one monolith signage, contending that his holding of 101.70 square meters affected by a proposed road widening fell under the commercial rate of Rs.90,000/- per square meter whereas the respondent Authority was inclined to settle it at Rs.30,000/- per square meter. The State contended nothing on record showed the holding was meant for business purpose but that the aspect could be examined if the matter was relegated to the District Magistrate. Without adverting to the merits, and with the consent of the parties, the Court disposed of the writ petition observing that if the petitioner's application was still pending, the concerned Authority should consider and decide it within six weeks from production of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14594 of 2026

Mahesh Chand

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Subedar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 21

¶10

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief :-

¶13

"I. Issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, petitioner's Varanasi to decide the representation dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure No. 5) and to release compensation of Rs.1,83,60,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Three Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) along with compensation for two boundary walls, two big trees and one monolith signage as per law and government rates in favour of the petitioner with interest within a fixed period."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the proprietor of Vimal Automobiles situated at Lalpur, Pandeypur, Varanasi and petitioner's holding admeasuring 101.70 square meters is affected under the proposed road widening. Learned counsel next submits that in view of the proposed road widening, the petitioner is to be conferred compensation as per the rate which is proposed by the respondent. However, the petitioner's holding falls under the commercial rate of Rs.90,000/- per square meter but the respondent Authority, in arbitrary manner, is inclined to settle the petitioner's holding at the rate of

¶15

WRIC No. 14594 of 2026

¶16

¶17

Rs.30,000/- per square meter. He further submits that a direction be issued to the District Magistrate, Varanasi to examine the matter and the same be remedied in accordance with law.

¶18

Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents submits that at this stage, the claim as set up by the petitioner is devoid of merit as nothing is brought on record to indicate that the petitioner's holding is meant for business purpose. However, this aspect can be examined by the Authority in case the matter is relegated to the District Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to advert on the merit of the case. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that in case, the application moved by the petitioner is still pending consideration, we expect that the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned Authority within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

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

¶21

April 20, 2026

¶22

Sumit S

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Chand Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Gangadhar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Indu Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit vs State of U.P. and 45 Others

M/S Indu Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 3 Others