Mewa Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 69773 of 2011
Reserved on 14.05.2026
Delivered on 07.09.2026
Mewa Lal and others
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Saral Srivastava,J)
1. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed
the notification dated 20.01.2003 under Section 4 and notification dated
17.01.2004 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
respectively.
3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are the owner of Gata
No.144 Kha, area measuring about 10 biswas and Gata No.234 area
measuring about 10 biswas situate in Village Keshopur Sarpatah, Post
Chak, Kisundas, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar
(Bhadohi).

2
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
4. The State Government issued a Notification under Section 4 (1)
read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act, 1894’) by invoking urgency clause on 20.01.2003 for
acquisition of land including the land of petitioner i.e. Gata No.144 Kha
for construction of Collectorate Building and Residence etc. of District
Headquarters in District Bhadohi. In the notification of Section 4,
petitioners’ Gata No.144 Kha was also mentioned. Section 6 Notification
was published on 17.01.2004.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent-State has acted
arbitrarily in invoking urgency clause inasmuch as there was no material
to arrive at a conclusion about existence of urgency. Therefore, there was
no occasion for the State Government to invoke urgency clause.
6. The further case of the petitioners is that Section 6 Notification
was published on 17.01.2004 whereas the award was published on
27.03.2006 i.e. after expiry of two years from the date of publication of
Section 6 Notification, therefore, acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
7. It is the further case of the petitioners that for achieving the public
purpose, individual purpose cannot be brushed aside, and in the instant
case, the petitioners are dwelling on the land in question, therefore,
petitioners would suffer severe hardship by acquisition of their land.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed contending inter alia that land
was required for construction of Collectorate Building and residence etc.
to establish District Headquarter, Gyanpur in District Gyanpur, Bhadohi.
For the said purpose, the land was acquired from different tenure
holders, but certain tenure holders including the petitioners did not agree
with the amount of compensation that was offered to them as the amount
of compensation was insufficient, therefore, they requested for exchange
of certain land. Hence, with their agreement, the land was exchanged
vide order dated 05.02.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(Judicial) under Section 161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act, 1950’).

3
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was
given a piece of land admeasuring area 10 biswa in Gata No.106 Min.
with the consent of petitioners, and in furtherance of the same, necessary
entries have been made in the revenue records.
10. The further case of the respondents is that petitioners never
challenged the order dated 05.02.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (Judicial) under Section 161 of the Act, 1950, and dishonestly
remained in occupation over 2 biswa land of Arazi No.144 Kha and
raised constructions over the same, therefore, based on the report of
Lekhpal dated 15.11.2019, a proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated against the petitioners and order
dated 13.12.2024 was passed by Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Gyanpur,
District Bhadohi for dispossession of petitioners from the aforesaid land.
11. It is further stated that petitioners, thereafter, preferred an appeal
under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the
Collector, Bhadohi which was also dismissed by order dated 29.11.2025.
12. The specific case of the respondents in paragraph nos.11 & 18 of
the counter affidavit is that Arazi No.144 Kha, which was recorded in the
name of petitioner no.1-Mewa Lal, had neither been acquired nor there
was any proposal for acquiring the same, and in fact the same has been
exchanged with the consent of petitioners with the land of Arazi No.106
Min., and in furtherance of the same, the entries have been recorded in
the revenue records. Arazi No.144 Kha is recorded in the name of Zila
Mukhyalaya, and petitioners have dishonestly and unauthorisedly been
continuing in possession over the land in dispute.
13. The petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit have denied the factum of
any exchange of Gata No.144 Kha with Gata No.106 (Min.). It is also
stated in the rejoinder affidavit that location of Gata No.106 (Min.) given
to the petitioners in exchange was not shown to the petitioners, and order
dated 05.02.2002 was passed behind the back of the petitioners.

4
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
14. The petitioners also denied the fact that they were given
possession of Arazi No.106 (Min.). The petitioners also stated that the
order of exchange is absolutely a mere paper formality.
15. Challenging the notification of acquisition, learned counsel for the
petitioners has contended that the action of the State Government in
invoking urgency clause was arbitrary inasmuch as there was no material
on record from which it could be inferred that there was actual urgency
which required the State Government to invoke urgency clause.
16. It is contended that the land owner’s right under Section 5-A of the
Act, 1894 cannot be dispensed with arbitrarily. He further submits that
the fact that there was no urgency is evident from the fact that Section 6
Notification was issued four days before expiry of one year from the
date of issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894.
17. It is further contended that while invoking urgency clause, the
State Government should bear in mind that individual interest/purpose
cannot be brushed aside for achieving public purpose.
18. It is lastly contended that the award was made on 27.03.2006
whereas Section 6 Notification was issued on 17.01.2004. Thus, the
acquisition proceeding had lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act, 1894
as the award was published after two years from the date of publication
of Notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894.
19. On the issue that the State Government has arbitrarily invoked
urgency clause, petitioners have relied upon judgement of Apex Court in
the case of Dev Sharan Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2011 AIR (SC)
809.
20. It is also submitted that if neither possession of land in question
had been taken nor compensation had been paid, the acquisition is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act No.30 of 2013. In
support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners
has placed relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Land Acquisition Collector and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others
(2023) 2 SCR 196.

5
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
21. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that
it is the specific case of the respondent-State in the counter affidavit that
the land of the petitioners had not been acquired rather land has been
exchanged with the consent of petitioners, and an order was passed by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial) on 05.02.2002 under Section
161 of the Act, 1950 with regard to aforesaid exchange.
22. It is submitted that petitioners have been given 10 biswa in Araji
No.106 (Min.) with the consent of petitioners and in furtherance of the
same, entries have been recorded in the revenue records.
23. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the order dated
05.02.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial) has not
been assailed by the petitioners and the petitioners are illegally
continuing over the possession of Araji No.144 Kha for which
proceeding under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code was initiated
and order dated 13.12.2024 was passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil
Gyanpur, District Bhadohi for dispossession of the petitioners from the
aforesaid land.
24. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
25. In the instant case, the record reflects that land of the petitioners
i.e. Gata No.144 Kha was mentioned in Section 4 Notification. However,
the award prepared by the Collector in respect of aforesaid acquisition
annexed as Annexure No.1 of counter affidavit reflects that petitioners’
land was taken on exchange. The relevant extract of the award dated
27.03.2006 is reproduced below:-
“श्री मेवालाल पुत्र जोखन, अमृतलाल पुत्र खेलाडी, शम्भूनाथ पुत्र विवदेशी, भानु प्रताप
पुत्रगण जोखन विन० ग्राम नंदापुर ने गाटा संख्या 234 के बाबत मांग विकया है विक भूविम
को अवमुक्त विकया जाय भूविम के बदले भूविम दी जाय अथवा दो लाख रूपये प्रतित विबस्वा
की दर से प्रतितकर विदया जाय।
उपरोक्त आपत्ति8कता9ओं के मांग के सम्बन्ध में विनण9य त्तिलया गया विक अपने मांग के
समथ9न में उनके द्वारा कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं विकया गया है। एवं भूविम के बदले सबको

6
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
भूविम विदया जाना संभव नहीं है। अतः स्वतत्व के आधार पर विनयमानुसार प्रतितकर
विनधा9रण कर भुगतान विकया जायेगा।
इस ग्राम में भूविम के बदले भूविम विदये जाने की सूचना तहसील से प्राप्त की गई है।
तहसीलदार द्वारा उपलब्ध कराई गई उद्धरण खतौनी में गाटा स०. 144 खा………...
कुल 23-3-9 बीघा भूविम के बदले भूविम विदये जाने का उल्लेख है। अतएव 23-0-3-
09 बीघा भूविम विदये जाने के कारण इसका प्रतितकर देय नहीं है। इस प्रकार इस गाव में
कुल 92-15-15 बीघा भूविम का ही प्रतितकर देय है।"
26. From the aforesaid extract of the award, it is evident that no award
was prepared with respect to the Gata No.144 Kha which is owned by
the petitioners, and the land in respect to above Gatas would be taken on
exchange. The respondent in this respect has made necessary averment
in paragraph nos.3 & 4 of the counter affidavit, which are reproduced
below:-
“3. That before giving parawise reply, it is most respectfully
submitted here that in order to establish District Headquarter,
Gyanpur Bhadohi for construction of Collectorate Building and
Residences etc. land was required, hence proceedings were initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and land was acquired from
different tenure holders, but certain tenure holders including the
petitioner had not agreed on the compensation that was offered to
them, feeling that insufficient, hence they requested for certain land
in exchange of the land to be taken by the Authorities concerned,
hence with their agreement land was exchanged vide order dated
05.02.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial) under
Section 161 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, the petitioner was given a
piece of land admeasuring area 10 biswa in Gata no.106 Minjumla
with the consent of the petitioner and in furtherance of the same
entries were recorded in the revenue records.
4. That petitioner never challenged the order dated 05.02.2002
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial) under Section
161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and dishonestly remained in
occupation over 2 biswa land of Araz No.144 Kha and raised certain
constructions over that, hence based on the report of the Lekhpal
15.11.2019 proceedings under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue

7
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
Code, 2006 was initiated against the petitioner and order dated
13.12.2024 was passed by the Tehsildar, Judicial, Tehsil Gyanpur,
District Bhadohi for dispossession of the petitioner from this
aforesaid land.”
27. The respondents further in paragraph nos.11 & 18 of the counter
affidavit have categorically stated that land in question was not acquired
rather it has been taken on exchange. Paragraph No.18 of the counter
affidavit is reproduced below:-
“18. That the contents of paragraphs no.21 & 22 of the writ petition
are not admitted in the form they stand, hence denied. In reply
thereto it is submitted that the land of the Arazi No.144Kha which
was recorded in the name of the petitioner no.1 has not been
acquired, but the same has been exchanged with the consent of the
petitioner with the land at Arazi no.106 Minjumla and in furtherance
of the same the entries has been recorded in the revenue records. The
Arazi no.144Kha is recorded in the name of Zila Mukhyalay and the
petitioner has dishonestly and unauthorisedly not left his possession
from 2 biswa land, out of 10 biswa land of the Arazi no.144Kha,
hence the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner no.1
under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 and orders for
dispossession have been passed against him by the Authorities
concerned.”
28. The petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit have stated that they are
not aware of the order dated 05.02.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (Judicial), and the exchange of land is only a paper
transaction, and the petitioners were never shown the Gata No.106
(Min.) which is alleged to have been given to the petitioners in
exchange.
29. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have also enclosed an
order passed by this Court in Writ-C No.1745 of 2016 preferred by the
petitioner no.1 challenging the order passed by the authorities under
Section 67(1) and 67 (5) and the writ petition was allowed on the ground

8
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
that notice was vague. However, this Court remanded the matter to
respondent no.3 in the said writ petition.
30. So the specific case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is
that land of the petitioners was not acquired and had been taken in
exchange, and a proceeding for eviction of petitioners under Section 67
has been initiated from the land in question.
31. The fact that compensation of the petitioners’ land was not
determined is also evident from the award.
32. The aforesaid extracted portion of the award clearly shows that
land of the petitioners was to be taken in exchange. Since it is specific
case of respondents that land of the petitioners had not been acquired
under the Act, 1894, therefore petitioners are not aggrieved by the said
acquisition, therefore, petitioners have got no locus standi to challenge
the aforesaid acquisition.
33. In view of the fact that the land of petitioners had not been
acquired rather it had been taken on exchange, we do not propose to deal
with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners
since we have held that petitioners are not aggrieved person by the said
acquisition and have no locus standi to challenge the same.
34. It is also pertinent to note that this Court has upheld the same
acquisition in Writ-C No.46556 of 2011 (Chhaviraj and Others Vs. State
of U.P. and Others) by judgement and order dated 11.02.2016. The
judgement and order of this Court dated 11.02.2016 is reproduced herein
below:-
“This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the notification
dated 20.1.2003 issued in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act as well as for quashing of the notification dated
17.1.2004 issued under Section 6 of the same Act.
There is inordinate delay of more than seven years subsequent to the
issuance of notification under Section 6. It has been admitted by
learned counsel for the petitioners that an award in respect of land so
acquired was made on 27.3.2006.

9
WRIC No. - 69773 of 2011
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dev Sharan and others Vs. State
of U.P., 2011 (3) A.L.J. 193.
The above judgment is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the
present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the
petitioners have not received the money in terms of award and
possession has not been taken, therefore, the proceedings would lapse
under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013.
The contention has only been raised to be rejected. From paragraph 9
of the counter affidavit, it is apparent that it is the petitioners, who
have not gone to collect the compensation in terms of the award and,
therefore, they cannot take benefit of their own wrong.
In the circumstances on record, we do not find any good ground to
entertain the present writ petition at such a belated stage.
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.”
35. Thus, for the reasons given above, we find no merit in the writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
September 7, 2026
Sattyarth/NS
Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad