Disposed¶14

Harish Chandra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WRIC/16177/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 16177 of 2026, Harish Chandra & 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. & 4 Ors., decided 06.05.2026 (Tripathi & Singh, JJ.). Mandamus sought to compel District Magistrate, Basti to decide representation dated 22.05.2025 seeking compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act at the present circle rate for Plot No. 96. Petition disposed of with direction to decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks; merits not examined; no quantum awarded; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Magistrate, Basti to decide the petitioners' representation dated 22.05.2025 in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from production of a certified copy of the order; merits not examined. ¶14

Harish Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 16177 of 2026

¶3

Harish Chandra And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others		....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Santosh Ratan Upadhyay	Pandey,	Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 21

¶7

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

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶9

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

¶10

" Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the District Magistrate, i.e. respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners of the accordance with law and the responsible respondents may be directed to ensure in the strict compliance of the act 2013 namely Right to Fair compensation and transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement Act 2013 and pay compensation without any for the delay in favour of the petitioners according to the present circle rate to the petitioners of Plot No.96, 96 of the petitioners, (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition)."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that for redressal of their grievance, the petitioners have filed representation on 22.05.2025 before the District Magistrate, Basti but till date, the said representation has not been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his relief to the extent that the said representation moved by the petitioners may be decided in accordance with law.

¶12

WRIC No. 16177 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the District Magistrate, Basti to decide the representation moved by the petitioners on 22.05.2025 in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that we are not adverting into the merit of the case.

¶15

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

¶16

May 6, 2026

¶17

Sumit S

¶18

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

Harish Chandra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Babita Agarwal Vs State of U.P. & 2 Others

Anil Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chhatar Pal Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Adityaagarwal and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohan Lal Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 20 Others