# Kanyawati v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 935
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 27598 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanyawati-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53079
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Land Law - Compensation - Right to
Property though, is not a Fundamental
Right but a Constitutional Right, which
has been recognized at par with the
human rights, which are inalienable. Thus,
no person can be deprived of his property
except in accordance with law and in case
where the land of a citizen has been acquired by
the St. Authorities without proper acquisition,
the same amounts to an action without
Authority of law. Thus, a person whose property
has been utilized without authority of law, is
entitled for due compensation in accordance
with the provisions of law applicable on the date
of such utilization of the property by the St..
(Para 17)

B. Delay and latches cannot be raised by a
continuing cause of action or if the
circumstances
shocks
the
judicial
conscious of the court. There is no period of
limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise
their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial
justice. (Para 18)

In the instant case it is apparent that the land of
the petitioner to the extent of 0.033 hectares
had been utilized by the St. Authorities without
authority of law and without there being any
acquisition of the land in accordance with law.
Thus,
the
petitioner
is
entitled
for
the
compensation,
which
is
required
to
be
determined in accordance with the provisions of
the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 19)

Since the land of the petitioner been utilized
without any proper acquisition, therefore,
Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot be
directed to quantify the compensation or
recommend its payment. In view thereof,
matter is remitted back to the District Level
Committee to determine the compensation.
(Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

3 All. Kanyawati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
935
direct that the petitioner is not
liable to deposit any installment after the
stoppage of mining operations for the
period from 1.7.2023 onwards. If any
amount
has
been
deposited/recovered/confiscated by/against
the petitioner, the same shall be refunded
within a period of one month from today
alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum
calculated
from
the
date
of
such
deposit/recovery/confiscation till the actual
payment.

55. Subject to the aforesaid
observations, this writ petition is allowed.

56. However, before parting,
we deem it fit to direct the respondents
to ensure preparation of DSR in
respect of every area sought to be
auctioned
for
mining
of
sand/gravel/morrum in compliance of
the Notification of 2006, as amended
by the Notification of 2016, the
SSMMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 935
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 27598 of 2020

Kanyawati ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Vimlesh KUmar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Land Law - Compensation - Right to
Property though, is not a Fundamental
Right but a Constitutional Right, which
has been recognized at par with the
human rights, which are inalienable. Thus,
no person can be deprived of his property
except in accordance with law and in case
where the land of a citizen has been acquired by
the St. Authorities without proper acquisition,
the same amounts to an action without
Authority of law. Thus, a person whose property
has been utilized without authority of law, is
entitled for due compensation in accordance
with the provisions of law applicable on the date
of such utilization of the property by the St..
(Para 17)

B. Delay and latches cannot be raised by a
continuing cause of action or if the
circumstances
shocks
the
judicial
conscious of the court. There is no period of
limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise
their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial
justice. (Para 18)

In the instant case it is apparent that the land of
the petitioner to the extent of 0.033 hectares
had been utilized by the St. Authorities without
authority of law and without there being any
acquisition of the land in accordance with law.
Thus,
the
petitioner
is
entitled
for
the
compensation,
which
is
required
to
be
determined in accordance with the provisions of
the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 19)

Since the land of the petitioner been utilized
without any proper acquisition, therefore,
Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot be
directed to quantify the compensation or
recommend its payment. In view thereof,
matter is remitted back to the District Level
Committee to determine the compensation.
(Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs Darius
Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627 (Para 10)
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. N. Padmamma Vs S. Ramakrishna Reddy,
(2008) 15 SCC 517 (Para 11)

3. Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. Vs St. of U.P.,
(2011) 9 SCC 354 (Para 12)

4. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Vs St. of Guj., 1995
Supp (1) SCC 596 (Para 13)

5. Vidya Devi Vs St. of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569
(Para 14)

6. St. of Har. Vs Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC
404 (Para 15)

7. Sukh Dutt Ratra Vs St. of H.P., (2022) 7 SCC
508 (Para 16)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vimlesh Kumar and Sri
Shiv Raj Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

2. The instant petition has been
filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by
an order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the
District Level Committee constituted under
a Government Order dated 12.05.2016,
pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court vide order dated 19.09.2019 passed
in Writ Petition (C) No. 29915 of 2019
(Smt. Kanyavati vs. State of U.P.).

3. The case of the petitioner is that
she is the owner of the land situated at
Khasra No. 53 area 0.0690 hectare situated
at Village- Akha, Pargana- Ballia, Tehsil-
Anwala, District- Bareilly, which she had
purchased by way of sale deed from Fate
Singh (However, from the perusal of the
sale deed dated 02.12.2009 annexed as
Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder, it is
apparent that the petitioner had purchased
the land from Smt. Urmila Devi). On the
basis of the aforesaid sale deed, her name
was mutated in the revenue records as
bhumidhar with transferable rights. On the
south of the aforesaid plot, was a chak
road. The case of the petitioner is that as
per the revenue records the width of the
said road was two and a half metre (8.25
feet) and the road was already constructed
thereon. Subsequent thereto, the widening
of the road was done in which according to
the petitioner her land, to the extent of
0.033 hectare, has been utilized by the
PWD
without
payment
of
any
compensation.

4. An RTI application was filed
before
Public
Information
Officer/Executive Officer, PWD Division-
Bareilly seeking information with regard to
any acquisition proceedings for widening
of the road. In reply thereto, it was
informed to the petitioner that there is no
record available with regard to acquisition
of the land as this Division was constituted
7-8 years ago. Thereupon, she kept on
sending
the
representations
claiming
therein that in the revenue record the width
of the chak road was 8.25 feet whereas the
road was constructed on the width of 3
metre. Subsequently, the road has been
further widened without acquiring the land
or payment of compensation to the land
owners and she claimed compensation for
her land used for widening of the road.
When she did not receive any response
from the Authority, she filed a Writ Petition
(C) No. 29915 of 2019, which was
disposed of with a direction to the District
Magistrate- Bareilly to refer the matter to
the District Level Committee in terms of
the Government Order dated 12.05.2016,
for
determination
of
entitlement
of
compensation of the petitioner herein. In
compliance of the aforesaid directions, the
matter was referred to the District Level
3 All. Kanyawati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
937
Committee. Vide order dated 24.02.2020,
the District Level Committee has rejected
the claim of the petitioner, holding that the
road was initially a chak marg on which a 3
metre wide pakka road was constructed
about 25-30 years back and on both sides
2.50 metre patri was available. In the year
2012-15, the said road was widened on
both sides utilizing 1.25 metre available
patri without affecting land of any
tenureholder. Since, no land of the
petitioner was acquired for purpose of
widening of the road, therefore, she is not
entitled for any compensation.

5. The claim of the petitioner is
that as per revenue record width of chak
marg was only 2.5 metre. Therefore, the
additional land which has been utilized for
construction of the road and widening of
the road is bhumidhari land, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation. The
State Authorities cannot utilize the land of
the
petitioner
without
payment
of
compensation.

6. Per Contra learned Standing
Counsel submits that since three metre
wide road was constructed 25-30 years
back without any objection from any side,
in view thereof the petitioner, who has
subsequently
purchased
the
land
in
question in the year, 2019 cannot claim any
compensation. It is further alleged that in
the sale deed of the petitioner itself the link
road has been shown on the south of the
said plot prior to the land purchased by the
petitioner. The widening of the road has
been done by the PWD on the available
patri on both sides of the road, without
acquiring
any
land.
Therefore,
the
petitioner
is
not
entitled
for
any
compensation. Learned Standing Counsel
has further relied upon the site plan given
in the sale deed of the petitioner wherein
existence of road is categorically stated.

7.

Having
regard
to
the
submissions of the parties, we have
carefully gone through the record of the
case. From the perusal of the records it is
apparent that initially on the chak road, the
pakka road was constructed by Sugar
Industry
and
Cane
Development
Department around 20 years back, prior to
the land purchased by the petitioner herein
to the extent of three metres, without
acquisition of any land. Subsequent thereto,
the said road has been further widened
sometimes between 2011 and 2014 by the
PWD and it is apparent from the report of
Tahsildar dated 05.02.2020, that due to
such widening of the road by PWD,
sometimes in 2014 the land of the
petitioner, to the extent of 0.033 hectares, is
affected from the Gata No. 54. Therefore,
it is apparent that the aforesaid affected
land of the petitioner had been utilized by
the
PWD
without
there
being
any
acquisition
and
without
payment
of
compensation to the petitioner herein or it
is further admitted that the petitioner or her
predecessors
in
interest
had
never
consented for utilization of the road.

8. The findings of the report dated
05.02.2020 by Tahsildar- Anwala are as
follows:

"तहसीलिार आांवला द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी
गयी आख्या दिनाक 05.02.2020 में अांदकत दकया
गया है दक "ग्राम अखा, परगना बदल्लया तहसील
आांवला दजला बरेली में दस्थत भूदम गाटा सांख्या 53
रकबा 0.069 वतामान अदभलेख खतौनी खाता सांख्या
54 पर कन्यावती पत्नी महीपाल के नाम बतौर
सांकमणीय भूदमधर अांदकत है। गाटा सां 53 वतामान में
चल रही सड़क अखा गैनी मागा पर दस्थत है। उक्त गाटा
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सां के सम्बन्ध में चाही गयी आख्या दबन्िुवार दनम्नवत्
है-
1. जोत चकबन्िी आकार पत्र 45 व 41
के खाता सांख्या पर पटे दसांह पुत्र गुपाल दसांह दनवासी
ग्राम वाररि हाल दनवासी खुिसारी दजला एटा का नाम
श्रेणी-1 का भूदमधर अांदकत है। प्रादथानी कन्यावती पत्नी
महीपाल दसांह का नाम आधार वषा खतौनी आकार पत्र45 में अांदकत नहीं है। साक्ष्य हेतु सी.एच.-45 का
उद्वरण सांलग्न है।
2. प्रादथानी का नाम आकार पत्र 45 में
अांदकत नहीं है।
3. कन्यावती पत्नी महीपाल दसांह का नाम
अदभलेख खतौनी में सन् फसली 1416 द्वारा बैनामा
अांदकत है।
4. अखा गैनी मागा गन्ना दवभाग द्वारा
लगभग 20 वषा पूवा बनवायी गयी है।
5. पी०डब्ल्यू०डी० द्वारा उक्त मागा का
2014 के आसपास चौडीकरण दकया जाना बताया
गया है।
6. प्राजथानी कन्यावती पत्नी महीपाल
के उक्त गाटा सिंख्या में 3.70x90=0.033 हे०
रकबा सड़क में (समाजहत) प्रभाजवत है।"

9. The Right to Property is
protected under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Thus, no person can
be deprived of his property without due
procedure of law. 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 the due procedure and without
payment of compensation. The property of
a citizen can be acquired for public purpose
on payment of reasonable compensation in
accordance with law.

10. In Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai:
(2005)
7
SCC
627,
the
following
observations were made by the Apex Court:
"6. ... Having regard to the
provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in
exercise of its power of "eminent
domain" may interfere with the
right of property of a person by
acquiring the same but the same
must be for a public purpose and
reasonable compensation therefor
must be paid."

11. In N. Padmamma vs. S.
Ramakrishna Reddy : (2008) 15 SCC 517,
the following observations were made by
the Apex Court:

"21. If the right of property
is a human right as also a
constitutional
right,
the
same
cannot be taken away except in
accordance with law. Article 300-A
of the Constitution protects such
right. The provisions of the Act
seeking
to
divest
such
right,
keeping in view of the provisions
of Article 300-A of the Constitution
of
India,
must
be
strictly
construed."

12. In Delhi Airtech Services (P)
Ltd. v. State of U.P. [Delhi Airtech
Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 9
SCC 354, the Apex Court has observed as
under:

"30. It is accepted in every
jurisprudence and by different
political thinkers that some amount
of
property
right
is
an
indispensable safeguard against
tyranny and economic oppression
of the Government. Jefferson was
of the view that liberty cannot long
subsist without the support of
property.
"Property
must
be
3 All. Kanyawati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
939
secured,
else
liberty
cannot
subsist" was the opinion of John
Adams. Indeed the view that
property itself is the seed-bed
which must be conserved if other
constitutional
values
are
to
flourish, is the consensus among
political thinkers and jurists."

13. In Jilubhai Nanbhai
Khachar v. State of Gujarat : 1995
Supp (1) SCC 596, the Apex Court
has observed as under:

"48. ... In other words,
Article 300-A only limits the
powers of the State that no person
shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law. There has
to be no deprivation without any
sanction of law. Deprivation by any
other mode is not acquisition or
taking possession under Article
300-A. In other words, if there is no
law, there is no deprivation."

14. In Vidya Devi v. State of H.P.:
(2020) 2 SCC 569, the Apex Court did not
accept the concept of oral consent of
persons for depriving him/her of his/her
valuable rights over the property and it is
observed that such utilization of land
without payment of lawful consideration is
not
sanctioned
by
the
constitutional
mechanism:

"12.8.
The
contention of the State that
the
appellant
or
her
predecessors had "orally"
consented to the acquisition
is completely baseless. We
find
complete
lack
of
authority and legal sanction
in compulsorily divesting
the
appellant
of
her
property by the State.
12.9.
In
a
democratic polity governed
by the rule of law, the State
could not have deprived a
citizen of their property
without the sanction of law.
Reliance is placed on the
judgment of this Court in
Tukaram Kana Joshi v.
MIDC
[Tukaram
Kana
Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1
SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC
(Civ) 491] wherein it was
held that the State must
comply with the procedure
for acquisition, requisition,
or any other permissible
statutory mode. The State
being
a
welfare
State
governed by the rule of law
cannot arrogate to itself a
status
beyond
what
is
provided
by
the
Constitution."

15. In State of Haryana v. Mukesh
Kumar : (2011) 10 SCC 404, the Apex
Court has held that Right to Property is
now
considered
not
only
to be
a
constitutional or statutory right but also a
human right. Human rights have been
considered in the realm of individual rights
such as right to shelter, livelihood, health,
employment, etc. Human rights have
gained a multi-faceted dimension.

16. In Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of
H.P., (2022) 7 SCC 508, the Apex Court
has held that in case the land of the citizens
have been acquired without following the
procedure of law, then it would a deemed
acquisition. Thus, the State Authorities are
liable to pay compensation to the citizens,
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whose land has been utilized without
acquisition as the same would have been
acquired under the relevant provisions of
the
applicable
law.
The
following
observation of the Apex Court would be
relevant to be noted:

"26. In view of the above
discussion, in view of this Court's
extraordinary jurisdiction under
Articles 136 and 142 of the
Constitution, the State is hereby
directed to treat the subject lands
as a deemed acquisition and
appropriately
disburse
compensation to the appellants in
the same terms as the order of the
Reference Court dated 4-10-2005
in Land Ref. Petition No. 10-LAC/4
of 2004 (and consolidated matters).
The respondent State is directed,
consequently to ensure that the
appropriate
Land
Acquisition
Collector
computes
the
compensation, and disburses it to
the appellants, within four months
from today. The appellants would
also be entitled to consequential
benefits of solatium, and interest on
all sums payable under law w.e.f.
16-10-2001 (i.e. date of issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the
Act), till the date of the impugned
judgment [Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State
of H.P., 2013 SCC OnLine HP
3773] i.e. 12-9-2013."

17. Thus, from the aforesaid
judgements it is apparent that Right to
Property though, is not a Fundamental
Right but a Constitutional Right, which has
been recognized at par with the human
rights, which are inalienable. Thus, no
person can be deprived of his property
except in accordance with law and in case
where the land of a citizen has been
acquired by the State Authorities without
proper acquisition, the same amounts to an
action without Authority of law. Thus, a
person whose property has been utilized
without authority of law, is entitle for due
compensation in accordance with the
provisions of law applicable on the date of
such utilization of the property by the State.

18. It is also been contented by the
State that there are delay and latches on the
part of the petitioner while approaching the
Court, seeking compensation for her land
utilized by the State. The Apex court in
Vidya Devi (supra), has held that delay
and latches cannot be raised by a
continuing cause of action or if the
circumstances shocks the judicial conscious
of the court. It has further been observed
that there is no period of limitation
prescribed for the courts to exercise their
constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial
justice. The following observation of the
Apex Court in Vidya Devi (supra) are
relevant which reads as under:

"12.12.
The
contention
advanced by the State of delay and
laches of the appellant in moving
the Court is also liable to be
rejected. Delay and laches cannot
be raised in a case of a continuing
cause
of
action,
or
if
the
circumstances shock the judicial
conscience
of
the
Court.
Condonation of delay is a matter of
judicial discretion, which must be
exercised
judiciously
and
reasonably
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of a case. It will
depend
upon
the
breach
of
fundamental rights, and the remedy
claimed, and when and how the
delay arose. There is no period of
3 All. Kanyawati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
941
limitation prescribed for the courts
to exercise their constitutional
jurisdiction
to
do
substantial
justice."

19. Thus, from the facts of the
instant case it is apparent that the land of
the petitioner to the extent of 0.033
hectares had been utilized by the State
Authorities without authority of law and
without there being any acquisition of the
land in accordance with law. Undisputedly,
the petitioner was the owner of the property
in question as she had purchased the land in
the year, 2009. From the records it is
apparent that the petitioner was running
from pillar to post to know the procedure
how she has been deprived of the property
in question. She has moved the RTI
applications and it was informed that she
has been deprived of the property without
there being any proper acquisition in
accordance with law. She has approached
this Court by filing the Writ Petition (C)
No. 29915 of 2019, which was disposed of
on 19.09.2019 with a direction that her case
be determined by the District Level
Committee
in
accordance
with
the
Government Order dated 12.05.2016. Vide
impugned order though, it is admitted by
the State Authorities that her land to the
extent of 0.033 hectares is affected by
widening of the road, done by PWD in the
year, 2014, for which neither the land was
acquired nor any compensation has been
paid. Thus, in the considered opinion of
this Court the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation, which is required to be
determined
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013.

20. Thus, since the land of the
petitioner been utilized without any proper
acquisition, therefore, we cannot direct the
Special
Land Acquisition
Officer
to
quantify the compensation or recommend
its payment. In view thereof, we remit back
the matter to the District Level Committee
to determine the compensation with regard
to the land of the petitioner to the extent of
0.033 hectares, which was utilized without
acquisition while widening the road in
accordance with the provisions of the Act,
2013. The compensation so determined
shall be paid to the petitioner by respondent
no.4 within a period of four weeks
alongwith interest as provided in the said
Act.

21. 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 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,
else
the
authorities, who may be found responsible
for such utilization of land without due
procedure of law shall be held responsible
personally and the court will have to
impose heavy penalty for such actions on
the part of the Authorities, which shall be
recovered from their personal account.

22.

With
the
aforesaid
observations, the instant writ petition is
allowed.
----------