Lalchand and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2026)

Lalchand and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: amendment application dated 5.2.2026 allowed (necessary incorporation within two days); Authority and State respondents directed to apprise the fate of the proceeding initiated pursuant to the earlier Division Bench direction and whether any award was made; respondents' counsel to complete instructions; matter to be listed fresh on 23.02.2026. No final adjudication on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are required to assess and pay compensation for the petitioners' land in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or alternatively to return the land to the petitioners. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The amendment application dated 5.2.2026 filed by the petitioners, not being objected to by learned counsel for the respondents, is allowed; necessary incorporation is to be made within two days.

Key takeaways

The Authority and the State respondents are directed to apprise the fate of the proceeding initiated in light of the direction issued by the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation, and to further apprise whether any award had been made, the previous order not reflecting invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, 1894.ratio¶18
Before finally adjudicating the matter, learned counsel for the respondents is to complete their instructions; the matter is to be put up again as fresh on 23.02.2026.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Division Bench order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to assess and pay compensation for the petitioners' land under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or alternatively to return the land. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.23819 of 1991 challenging the notifications dated 4.12.1987 (Section 4) and 17.3.1989 (Section 6) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the Division Bench disposed of that petition on 9.1.2008, directing the respondents to consider/process the claim within two months and the parties to maintain status quo. In the present petition, the amendment application dated 5.2.2026 was allowed; the Authority (Gorakhpur Development Authority) and the State respondents were directed to apprise the fate of the proceeding initiated pursuant to the earlier direction and whether any award had been made, the previous order not reflecting invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, 1894. Matter to be put up fresh on 23.02.2026; no final adjudication on merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 2839 of 2026

Lalchand And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pavan Kumar, Suprabha Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Narendra Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Sayujya Singh

Court No. - 21

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

Heard Ms. Suprabha Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for Gorakhpur Development Authority (in short "Authority").

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed amendment application dated 5.2.2026. The same is not objected by learned counsel for the respondents. The amendment application is allowed. Necessary incorporation be made within two days.

The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondents to assess and make payment of compensation to the petitioner for the land in question in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or to return the land to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier invoked writ jurisdiction by preferring Writ Petition No.23819 of 1991 challenging the validity of notification dated 4.12.1987 under Section 4 and 17.3.1989 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "Act, 1894"). In the said writ petition, entire claim had been set up by the petitioners that they are using the abadi land and the same were not hampering the integrated project/ planned development. The Division Bench, considering the judgments in Union of India & Anr. v. Bal Ram

WRIC No. 2839 of 2026

2

Singh & Ors., 1992 (Suppl) 2 SCC 136 and M/s J. Son Engineer Corporation v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No.188896 of 1987 decided on 11.09.1991, had disposed of the said writ petition on 9.1.2008 directing the respondents to consider/process the claim/application of the petitioners within two months and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Later on the State Government had proceeded to consider the claim of petitioner/ tenure holder. In this regard, a communication dated 26.3.2012 is appended as Annexure No.7, which is made by the Authority to one Ramdhari S/o Late Triveni.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, states that inspite of a positive direction issued to the respondents to process such application, in case the petitioners' holding were not hampering the integrated project, till date neither the said application had been processed nor adequate compensation had been ensured. Only in this backdrop, the amendment application was filed. She submits that in response to the earlier direction either the land of the petitioners may be exempted or adequate compensation may be accorded to the petitioners.

In the facts and circumstances, let the Authority as well as the State respondents apprise the fate of the proceeding, which was initiated in the light of the direction issued by the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation. The respondents shall further apprise whether any award had been made in the instant proceeding as the previous order does not reflect that the urgency clause under Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act, 1894 had been invoked.

Before finally adjudicating the instant matter, let learned counsel for respondents complete their instructions. Put up this matter again as fresh on 23.02.2026.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) February 5, 2026 SP/

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad