State Cannot Cite Administrative Confusion To Avoid Compliance With Court Orders: Allahabad High Court
Holding that internal distribution of work within the State Government cannot be used as a shield to avoid compliance with judicial orders, the High Court has ruled that in cases of non-compliance arising from administrative confusion, responsibility would fasten on the highest executive authority of the State.
The Allahabad High Court has held that the internal distribution of work among departments of the State Government cannot be cited as a justification for non-compliance with judicial orders, and that the obligation to ensure compliance rests squarely on the State.
The Court was hearing a contempt application arising from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, alleging willful disobedience of a final order passed by the Court declaring the acquisition to have lapsed.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai, while allowing the contempt application, held: “The distribution of work between the different departments of the State Government cannot be used as a pretext to not implement the order of this Court. It is the duty of the State Government to ensure full compliance of the order passed by this Court. In case of any non-compliance because of any confusion in the administrative machinery of the State Government regarding the department or officer who is responsible to ensure compliance would make the highest officer of the State responsible and liable in contempt”.
The applicant was represented by Advocate Dharmendra Kumar Pandey.
Background
The applicant claimed to be a co-sharer and bhumidhar with transferable rights in several plots of land acquired by the State pursuant to notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Although awards had been passed decades earlier, compensation was admittedly never paid to the applicant in accordance with the law.
Following the enforcement of the 2013 Act, the applicant contended that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) on account of non-payment of compensation and non-taking of physical possession. The High Court, by its order dated 27 July 2016, accepted this contention and declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, directing the release of the land.
Despite dismissal of the State’s Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, the State authorities failed to comply with the High Court’s order, leading to the filing of the present contempt application.
Court’s Observation
The Allahabad High Court examined the prolonged non-compliance by the State authorities and noted that multiple and shifting stands were taken regarding which department was responsible for payment of compensation, including the Irrigation Department and the Urban Development Department.
The Bench held that such internal administrative arrangements were irrelevant insofar as compliance with judicial orders was concerned. The Court observed that land acquired under either the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act vests in the State, and it is the State Government which remains primarily liable for payment of compensation.
The Court rejected the State’s contention that subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court overruling Pune Municipal Corporation absolved it of liability to comply with the final order passed in the writ petition. Relying on settled principles, the Court held that overruling a precedent only removes its precedential value and does not reopen disputes which have attained finality between the parties.
The Bench emphasised that even an erroneous judicial order is binding inter partes until set aside by a superior court, and executive authorities cannot refuse compliance on the ground of a subsequent change in law.
Addressing the plea of administrative confusion, the Court held that where non-compliance arises due to ambiguity regarding departmental responsibility, accountability would rest with the highest executive authority of the State. In categorical terms, the Court held that “it would be the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who would be liable for contempt of this Court in case the order passed by this Court is not complied.”
Conclusion
Holding that the State authorities had knowingly and willfully disobeyed the binding orders of the Court, the Allahabad High Court allowed the contempt application and held that internal administrative arrangements cannot be invoked to defeat compliance with judicial directions.
The Court further directed that “on the next date fixed the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Prayagraj shall either file their compliance affidavit showing full compliance of the order …passed by this Court, …or shall be personally present in the Court for framing of charges”.
The matter has been listed again for hearing on January 05th 2026.
Cause Title: Vinay Kumar Singh v. Suresh Chandra, Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:214100)
Appearances
Applicant: Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate; Pankaj Dubey, Advocate
Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel; Standing Counsel