Disposed

Israr v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2026WRIC/37479/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide compensation in respect of Arazi No. 472. The Court stated that land may be divested for public purpose only in accordance with law and with appropriate compensation, and treated the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 as providing an efficacious remedy. It disposed of the petition with liberty to make a fresh representation before the Committee constituted under that order.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with liberty to make a fresh representation with a true attested copy of the order before the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks; the District Level Committee was directed to consider the claim and finalize the proceeding expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks.

Israr Vs Union of India and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 37479 of 2026

¶3

Israr

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ajit Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., Anurag Yadav, C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal

¶6

Court No. - 29

¶7

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

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Sri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶9

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

¶10

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the respondent authorities to provide the payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of Arazi No. 472, in accordance with law."

¶11

At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel informed to the Court that for redressal of grievance of tenure holders, claiming certain right/title over their land, the State Government had issued detailed Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which provides that in case the claimant files claim supported with requisite documents, the same would be considered by the District Level Committee for ensuring adequate compensation in the light of Act 2013. He submits that once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the matter should be relegated to the District Level Committee, which may examine the claim of petitioners within a reasonable time and submit its report to the Chairman/District Magistrate, who may accord adequate compensation accordingly.

¶12

WRIC No. 37479 of 2026

¶13

¶14

The position of law is well-established that in view of Article 300A and 31A of the Constitution of India, the owner of land can be divested only in accordance with law after appropriately compensating, if such land is required by the State for public purpose. Since, such power of eminent domain is not in dispute, we need not advert the matter at this stage in view of Government Order dated 12.05.2016.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed in the instant matter, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation along with true attested copy of the instant order before 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 petitioner and ensure that the proceeding shall be finalized expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, thereafter.

¶16

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

¶17

September 18, 2026 Sumit S

¶18

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

Israr v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israr v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases