Prayagraj: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has allowed a writ petition filed by two landowners, directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to promptly calculate and pay compensation for private land appropriated by the Gram Panchayat for constructing a public way (khadanja) without following due acquisition procedures. The judgment, delivered on November 26, 2025, emphasized that the right to property is both a human right and a constitutional right under Article 300A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law and upon payment of just compensation.
The petitioners, Kaushal Kishore and another, had approached the court seeking compensation for 0.109 hectare of land from their Plot No. 328, situated in Village Andka, District Barabanki, which had been used by the Gram Panchayat, Andka, to construct a 4-meter-wide public way.
The factual matrix, established through a demarcation report dated August 18, 2023, confirmed that new construction had been carried out on a portion of the petitioners’ land that was not recorded as a road in the revenue records. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh, had accepted this report but held that possession could not be restored to the petitioners since the construction was in public interest.
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel argued that the construction was executed without acquisition and without payment of compensation, thereby violating constitutional rights. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, excerpts of which were cited in the judgment:
“To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.”
The State, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel and counsel for the Gram Panchayat, opposed the petition, contending that the khadanja was constructed on an existing kacha road used by villagers for 30–40 years, and that the land use would therefore “tantamount to adverse possession.”
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar (author of the judgment), categorically rejected the State’s plea of adverse possession. The court held:
“We are surprised by the plea taken by the State that since the land was used as a passage for the last 30–40 years, it would tantamount to adverse possession. The State, being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take a plea of adverse possession. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizen. [Reliance is placed on paragraph 12.11 of Vidya Devi (supra)].”
The court further noted that although the land was being used as a passage, it was undisputed that it had never been acquired for road construction. The Bench observed:
“We do not find any justification for the respondents to occupy or utilize the portion of the land in question without following or adopting the procedures prescribed under the law.”
Reaffirming the legal position, the court stated:
“No person can be deprived of his property without due procedure of law. It is well settled in a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the right to property is not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right, and the property of a citizen can only be acquired for a public purpose, following due procedure and only upon payment of reasonable compensation in accordance with law.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the authorities were directed to calculate and pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law within twelve weeks from the date of the order.
Case Details:
Title: Kaushal Kishore and another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lucknow & Others
Case Number: WRIT-C No. 8222 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon’ble Prashant Kumar, J.
Judgment Delivered On: November 26, 2025
Advocates:
For the Petitioners:
Sri Madan Gopal Tripathi, Sri Shivam Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents (State / Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue & Others):
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
For Respondent No. 5 (Gram Panchayat):
Sri Mohan Singh
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
