Allahabad High Court Warns State Against Using Private Land Without Legal Acquisition, Orders Compensation For Landowner
The petitioner has approached the Court seeking redressal against the DLC's decision, which was issued under a Government Order dated May 12, 2016, following previous High Court directions.
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned State Authorities against utilizing private land without following due legal procedures, warning that officers responsible for such unauthorized use will face heavy penalties recoverable from their personal accounts.
The Petition had been filed challenging an order dated February 24, 2020, passed by the District Level Committee (DLC). The petitioner has approached the Court seeking redressal against the DLC's decision, which was issued under a Government Order dated May 12, 2016, following previous High Court directions.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta made these remarks while hearing a plea filed by a landowner in Bareilly whose property was taken by the Public Works Department (PWD) for road widening without compensation.
Though the Court refrained from imposing costs in the present case, it emphasized that authorities must ensure private land is not used without acquisition and due compensation. "While disapproving the action of the State Authorities of utilizing the land of the petitioner without Authority of Law, we are refraining ourselves from awarding the penalty against the State Authorities who have utilized the land without sanction of law," the Division Bench said.
“The State Authorities are required to be cautious that they should not utilize the land of the citizens without due authority of law or without following the proper procedure of acquisition,” the Court observed, adding that officers found guilty of such actions would be held personally liable and penalized.
Advocate Rajendra Prasad Tiwari appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rajiv Gupta appeared for the Respondent.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had purchased land in Bareilly, where official records showed a chak road running to the south of her plot. However, when the road was widened, a portion of her land was taken without acquisition or compensation. After filing an RTI application, she discovered that no record of acquisition proceedings existed. Despite multiple representations, authorities failed to address her grievance, prompting her to file a writ petition before the High Court.
Earlier, the High Court had directed the District Magistrate of Bareilly to refer the matter to the District Level Committee (DLC) for compensation determination. However, the DLC rejected her claim, arguing that the road widening did not infringe upon any private rights. The petitioner then challenged the decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
Examining the Tehsildar's report, the Court found that the initial chak road was developed 20 years ago without acquisition, and later widened by the PWD, taking part of the petitioner’s land without following legal procedures. It reaffirmed that Article 300A of the Constitution guarantees the right to property, stating, “The land of a person cannot be acquired without payment of due compensation in accordance with law. There is no concept of implied consent for utilizing the land of a citizen without following due procedure and without payment of compensation.”
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, N. Padmamma vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2005), and Vidya Devi v. State of H.P (2020), which held that no person can be deprived of property without legal sanction and compensation.
Court’s Directions
Recognizing that the petitioner had run pillar to post for answers, the Court ruled that she was entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. The District Level Committee was directed to determine and pay the compensation within four weeks, along with interest as per the Act.
Cause Title: Kanyawati v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29933-DB]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocates Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Vimlesh Kumar
Respondent: Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rajiv Gupta
Click here to read/download the Order
