Brahm Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Heard Shri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Mr. Saurabh Yadav holding brief of Ishan Deo Giri, learned counsel for Ganga Expressway Authority (for short, "Authority").

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction commanding respondent No. 2, namely, the District Magistrate, Amroha, to award compensation at the prevailing market rate in respect of Gata No. 263, admeasuring 1.3680 hectare, situated in Village Kharsauli, Tehsil and Pargana Hasanpur, District Amroha.

¶13

The claim of the petitioners is founded on the ground that a part of their land was acquired by the Authority for the Madhya Ganga Canal Project on 13.02.2020, and a sale deed in respect thereof was executed on 20.03.2023 at a higher rate, whereas the remaining part of the petitioners' holding was acquired through a mutual agreement at a lesser rate in an arbitrary manner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the aforesaid backdrop, submits that a direction be issued to the respondent-Authority to pay compensation at the higher rate, as reflected in the sale deed dated 20.03.2023 executed in favour of the Irrigation Department.

¶15

Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and placed reliance upon an order dated 2 February 2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.34314 of 2025 (Diwakar Rai and 2

¶16

WRIC No. 16443 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) wherein the Court has considered an order dated 18.07.2019 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 19406 of 2019 (Smt. Rakesh Kumari vs. State of U.P. and others) then the order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 15071 of 2025 (Ram Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) , followed by the order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 32984 of 2025 (Geeta Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) , and finally the order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 35714 of 2025 (Rajpal Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) . He submits that while deciding the writ petition in Rajpal (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court also considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar, LAWS (SC)-2005-3-33 , and held that once the acquisition is based on mutual agreement and the consideration is received, it cannot subsequently be challenged. He has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 6415 of 2023 (Pramod Sharma and 17 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) .

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no case is made out at this belated stage, inasmuch as the sale deed was admittedly executed in the year 2023 on the basis of a mutual agreement. It cannot be said that the petitioners entered into the said agreement under any pressure, coercion, or fraud on the part of the respondent-Authority. The petitioners, with open eyes and a conscious mind, and without any undue influence or coercion, accepted the consideration and executed the agreement; therefore, at a subsequent stage, they cannot be permitted to resile from the agreement entered into between the parties.

¶20

Under the facts and circumstances, and upon the objections raised by the respondents, we do not find any plausible reason to take a view different from the consistent view adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajpal (supra).

¶21

Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed .

¶22

May 6, 2026 Mukesh Kr.

¶23

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

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brahm Singh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahm Singh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

Kanpur Colonisers Private Limited vs State of Up and 5 Others

Swapnil Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others