Shambhu Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 5882 of 2026

¶3

Shambhu Singh Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s) Versus

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others	: Prakash Man Tiwari, Vineet Pathak .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anurag Yadav, C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 21

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Shri Prakash Man Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents, and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

¶9

While entertaining the writ petition on 13.02.2026, considering the objection of the respondents, this Court proceeded to pass the following order:

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent - National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

¶11

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

¶12

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the interim award money for the compensation as per the Rules along with 12% p.a. interest rate or commercial rate in view of the Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 OR directing the

¶13

WRIC No. 5882 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

respondents to pay the compensation amount of Rs.6,26,22,900/-mentioned in the affidavit was paid to the petitioner under Section 3(A) (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which was published in the notification dated 15.01.2015 in Amar Ujala newspaper, and the time period of more than 10 years has passed but till now the petitioner has not been paid the compensation amount.

¶16

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 12.11.2025 within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶17

Issue any other and further writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

¶18

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the present petition amounts to a second writ petition, inasmuch as the petitioner had earlier preferred WRIT - C No. - 22439 of 2025 (Shambhu Singh Yadav vs. District Magistrate Ghazipur And 2 Others) arising out of the same cause of action, which was disposed of on 15.07.2025. It is submitted that a second writ petition on the same cause of action is impermissible under the Rules of the High Court and is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in pith and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the detailed observations made by the Division Bench in its order dated 15.07.2025, the compensation has not been released till date.

¶20

5. Before proceeding further on the merits of the case, the respondents may obtain instructions in the matter.

¶21

6. Put up this matter again as fresh on 26.02.2026."

¶22

In response to the aforesaid directions, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned

¶23

WRIC No. 5882 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent – NHAI, have placed detailed instructions, which are taken on record.

¶26

On the strength of the detailed instructions, it is vehemently contended that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings undertaken by NHAI, and despite notice having been issued to the petitioner, he did not come forward to receive the compensation. Consequently, the amount quantified towards compensation was deposited in an interest-bearing account in Bank of Baroda on 03.06.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that earlier notices were issued requiring the petitioner to furnish requisite details so that the amount could be released in his favour, however, instead of taking appropriate steps in response to such notices, the petitioner has preferred writ petitions from time to time on the same facts and circumstances. As such, it is contended that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit.

¶27

Considering the reliefs sought and the instructions placed on record, we find that in respect of the acquired land, the award has already been prepared under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”). Since the petitioner did not receive the compensation despite notice, the respondent – NHAI has already deposited the compensation amount in an interest-bearing account. It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the quantum of compensation. We, therefore, leave it open to the petitioner that, in case he is inclined to receive the compensation already deposited in Bank of Baroda, he may furnish the requisite documents establishing that he is the rightful owner of the land in question, whereupon the compensation shall be released in his favour. We also leave it open to the petitioner that, if he is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, he may avail the remedy in accordance with the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

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

¶30

February 26, 2026 NLY

¶31

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

Shambhu Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Singh Yadav 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harsh Bhati and Another vs State of U..P and 2 Others

Smt. Seema Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Chhote Lal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Indira Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others