Disposed

Umesh Prasad Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2026WRIC/34817/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A recorded tenure holder challenged a land-acquisition award for land acquired under the National Highways Act, alleging that the mandatory notice under Section 3-G(3) had not been published. The Authority conceded the notice was not published, but the petitioner had accepted the compensation. The High Court therefore declined to determine the effect of the notice defect and disposed of the petition under its earlier decision, leaving objections confined to enhancement of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of paragraph 49 of the earlier Division Bench decision, limiting the petitioner to filing objections concerning enhancement of the compensation quantum.

Umesh Prasad Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 34817 of 2026

¶3

Umesh Prasad Chaurasiya

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mahesh Narain Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶10

Short counter-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

We have heard Shri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 (National Highways Authority of India), and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Umesh Prasad Chaurasiya, praying for a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration)/Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), National Highways 727-A, Deoria Bypass, District Deoria, under Section 3- G of the National Highways Act, 1956, in Case No. 19 of 2024, insofar as it relates to the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 8M, admeasuring 0.1770 hectare, situated in Village Pagra @ Parsiya, Tehsil and District Deoria, with his name duly recorded in the Khatauni for the fasli years 1429–1434. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.02.2024 on the ground that no publication of notice for inviting objections was made under Section 3-G(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire determination was conducted without any definite notice under Section 3-G(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that the compensation awarded by the award dated 16.02.2024, insofar as it affects the petitioner, be quashed, and

¶14

WRIC No. 34817 of 2026

¶15

¶16

the petitioner be granted an opportunity to file objections with regard to the enhancement of compensation, etc. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ-C No. 7723 of 2025 (Manoj Kumar Baranwal and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) decided on 14th July, 2026.

¶17

Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India, after having filed a short counter-affidavit, fairly concedes that the mandatory notice under Section 3-G(3) of the Act was not published. He submits that since the amount of compensation has already been accepted by the petitioner, in terms of paragraph 49 of the decision dated 14th July, 2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is entitled only to file objections against the award limited to the enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

¶18

That being the position, we are definitively of the view that as the petitioner has already accepted the compensation given to him under the award dated 16.2.2024, therefore, this Court need not deal with the effect of non-publication of notice under Section 3G(3) of the Act. As this issue has already been dealt in Writ-C No. 7723 (Manoj Kumar Baranwal and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition in terms of paragraph No. 49 of the order passed in Writ-C No. 7723 of 2025 (Supra)

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶20

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶21

September 17, 2026 Sumaira

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umesh Prasad Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Prasad Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases