Disposed¶22

Keshav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2026WRIC/22972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 22972 of 2021; Keshav v. State of U.P.; Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority; compensation for bhumidhari land; District Level Committee; Government Order dated 12.05.2016; Gata No. 825D; Gata No. 687; Gata Nos. 825 and 877; Nahar Bamba (drainage channel); representation dated 26.07.2021; mandamus; fresh representation; finalise within two months; Gopal Prasad v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 32548 of 2019; Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.; Kunal Ravi Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation along with true attested copy of the order before the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks; the Committee to consider the claim and finalise the proceeding expeditiously, preferably within two months.

Keshav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 26.07.2021 and grant compensation for their bhumidhari lands. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation along with a true attested copy of the order before the District Level Committee within two weeks; upon such representation, the Committee shall consider the claim and finalise the proceeding expeditiously, preferably within two months.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' claim, which has been pending consideration since 2021, has not been adjudicated upon in its entirety.

¶18

Key takeaways

The matter is to be considered afresh by the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, insofar as it concerns the lands comprised in Gata No. 825D and Gata No. 687.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.), by judgment dated March 10, 2026 in WRIT - C No. 22972 of 2021 (Keshav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus for compensation for the petitioners' bhumidhari lands (share in khasra/gata nos. 825, 687, 688, village Sunrakh Bangar, Vrindavan, Mathura) pursuant to their representation dated 26.07.2021. The State countered that the claim stood settled by the District Level Committee, constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, vide order dated 13.10.2020 relating to Gata Nos. 825 and 877 (recorded as Nahar Bamba). Holding that the petitioners' claim, insofar as it concerned Gata No. 825D and Gata No. 687, had not been adjudicated upon in its entirety, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh representation before the District Level Committee within two weeks, directing the Committee to consider the claim and finalise the proceeding expeditiously, preferably within two months.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 22972 of 2021

¶3

Keshav And 3 Others	Versus .....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rajesh Dutta Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

¶4

Court No. - 21

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Shri Rajesh Dutta Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ajeet Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents and Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent – Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority.

¶7

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

¶8

"1. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner as per representation dated 26.07.2021 for provide the compensation in favor of the petitioners for the land of the petitioners bearing 1/2 share of khasara no. 825 ina area 0.3480 Hec., and total area of 687 Gha area-0.0690 Hec., 688Gha area 0.1130 Hec. Situated at village Sunrakh Bangar, (Vrindavan) Tahsil and DistrictMathura.

¶9

2. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the amount of compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the law for the bhumidhari lands of the petitioners.

¶10

3. To issue a writ order or direction that this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

4. To award the cost of this petition to the petitioner."

¶12

WRIC No. 22972 of 2021

¶13

¶14

A detailed counter affidavit was filed on 30.04.2022. Therein, an objection has been raised that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2019 in Writ-C No. 32548 of 2019 (Gopal Prasad and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), the matter was relegated to the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, for adjudication of the claims of the parties.

¶15

The learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim has already been settled by the District Level Committee vide order dated 13.10.2020, a copy whereof has been appended to the counter affidavit. It is accordingly contended that the petitioners have no subsisting right or claim over the property in question, in view of the decision of the District Level Committee.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners resists this contention and submits that the petitioners’ holdings are distinct from the property in respect of which the order dated 13.10.2020 was passed by the District Level Committee. He points out that the said order dealt with Gata Nos. 825 and 877, which were recorded in the revenue records as Nahar Bamba (drainage channel), whereas the instant petition relates to Gata No. 825D and Gata No. 687, which have not been considered or decided by the District Level Committee. He accordingly submits that the matter ought to be examined by the District Level Committee in light of the Government Order dated 12.05.2016.

¶17

We have carefully examined the record, perused the order dated 13.10.2020, and considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record by way of the counter affidavit, we find that the petitioners’ claim, which has been pending consideration since 2021, has not been adjudicated upon in its entirety. The matter is, therefore, to be considered afresh by the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, insofar as it concerns the lands comprised in Gata No. 825D and Gata No. 687.

¶19

Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representation along with true attested copy of

¶20

WRIC No. 22972 of 2021

¶21

¶22

the instant order before District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks. In the event, such representation is made, the District Level Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioners and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalised expeditiously, preferably within two months, thereafter.

¶23

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

¶24

March 10, 2026 NLY

¶25

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Keshav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanju Rawat and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmveer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Sapna Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Narendra Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Kumar Chaubey and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abrar Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others