Daya Shankar Pathak vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Heard Sri Anshul, holding brief of Sri Mahendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent No. 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner and provide the compensation forthwith towards acquisition of his land regarding Arazi No. 174 (Area 0.28 deg) and Arazi No. 623 (Area 0.327 hectare) situated in Village Murarpatti, District - Ballia.

¶13

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Respondent No. 3 to restore the name of the Petitioner in the Revenue Records (Khatauni) over the land in question as the acquisition proceedings were never finalized and no compensation was ever paid and the project was never initiated.

¶14

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a

¶15

WRIC No. 18451 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

stipulated time."

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner's holding is affected under the Scheme known as Ring Bandh Bahuara Shivpur Kapoor Diyar project. He further submits that on the spot, the same has never been constructed but on account of their project, the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss and injury. Learned counsel next contends that neither the land in question has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act nor the petitioner's holding has been left over under the said project. At this stage, the petitioner has confined his relief to the extent that the representation, which is stated to be pending consideration before the District Magistrate, Ballia, may be decided in accordance with law.

¶19

Considering the relief as prayed for, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that in case, the petitioner moves a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the District Magistrate, Ballia within ten days, we expect that the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

May 12, 2026

¶22

Sumit S

¶23

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

Daya Shankar Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Shankar Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 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

Similar cases

Ram Kishore Vishwakarma Vs District Judge and Another

Jyotika Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Nepal Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Malik Education Society and Another vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Smt Raj Kumari Prasad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shripal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others