Bal Kishan vs Union Of India & Ors.

(Per: KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.)

Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Raghav Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Dharmendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of Plot No. 277, admeasuring approximately 950 sq. mtrs, and contiguous Plot No. 276, admeasuring 1,900 sq. mtrs, situated in Village Sivaya, Jamaullapur, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut. According to the petitioner, both plots, including the remaining unacquired land, lie within a boundary wall.

For the implementation of the Delhi-Ghaziabad-Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) Corridor, the National Capital Region Transport Corporation (“NCRTC” for brevity), Respondent No. 3, initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act of 2013" for brevity). A notification under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 was issued on 27.04.2023, followed by a notification under Section 19 dated 25.07.2023, published in the Gazette on 26.07.2023. The initial notification provided for the acquisition of 1,720 sq. mtrs of land out of Plot No. 276, in which the petitioner had a share of 1,900 sq. mtrs, and 404 sq. mtrs of land out of Plot No. 277, in which the petitioner had a share of 950 sq. mtrs.

Pursuant to joint measurement conducted on 05.06.2023 by the Tehsildar, Sardhana, and Respondent No. 3, the area to be acquired was determined. The award was declared by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Joint Organization, Meerut, on 15.12.2023 in respect of the disputed plots. According to the award, 1,564 sq. mtrs of Plot No. 276 and 359 sq. mtrs of Plot No. 277 (of which 320 sq. mtrs pertains to the petitioner's share) were acquired. The petitioner received compensation in accordance with the award.

It is an admitted fact that the remaining portions of Plot Nos. 276 and 277 were declared non-agricultural land by an order dated 29.04.2024 passed under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

On 20.05.2024, the petitioner approached the authorities for demarcation of the acquired and unacquired land. When no action was taken, the petitioner instituted Writ-C No. 20054 of 2024, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding Respondent No. 3 not to take possession of land in Plot No. 277 beyond the acquired area of 320 sq. mtrs under the Act of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 06.06.2024, directing the authorities to demarcate Plot Nos. 276 and 277 in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure, and not to take possession of the land until completion of the exercise.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted applications to the Chief Project Manager of Respondent No. 3, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sardhana, requesting proper demarcation and an opportunity to remain present during the demarcation. The demarcation was undertaken on 19.06.2024. Several representations were subsequently submitted to the revenue authorities, including the District Magistrate, seeking proper demarcation and a copy of the report. The demarcation report dated 12.07.2024 was supplied to the petitioner on 22.08.2024. The report stated that possession had been taken of 0.1564 hectares in Plot No. 276 and 0.0359 hectares in Plot No. 277, corresponding to the area mentioned in the award.

The petitioner submitted detailed objections on 19/20.09.2024. Possession of the acquired land was handed over to Respondent No. 3 by the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Meerut, on 22.10.2024. The petitioner submitted supplementary objections on 04.11.2024. According to the petitioner, the eastern-facing wall was demolished on 29.11.2024.

The present writ petition has consequently been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction restraining the respondents from taking possession of Plot No. 277 beyond the acquired area and from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the remaining land until lawful demarcation is carried out and the objections are considered.

After the writ petition had been entertained, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner pointed out discrepancies between the map annexed to the report and the map supplied to him. Taking note of the said discrepancy, this Court, by an order dated 17.03.2025, directed Respondent No. 3 to specifically respond to the contention that the demarcation report submitted along with the written instructions by the State respondents differed from the map annexed at page 75 of the writ petition. Thereafter, by an order dated 09.12.2025, this Court directed that a fresh survey be conducted in the presence of the petitioner and the officials of Respondent No. 3 and that the report be submitted in a sealed cover through the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

Pursuant thereto, a fresh demarcation report was prepared following a spot inspection. Instead of the report being submitted to this Court we find from submitted report that Respondent No. 3 raised objections to the survey conducted on 22.12.2025, and the district administration entertained those objections without any such directions being issued by this Court. Thereafter, another survey was conducted on 12.01.2026 in the presence of the Chief Project Manager of respondent No.3, namely Shri Aabodh Kumar. The report dated 12.01.2026 was produced before the Court in a sealed cover, and time was granted to learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 to file objections. Respondent No. 3 filed objections to the report dated 12.01.2026 and prayed that reliance be placed on the earlier reports dated 05.06.2023 and 14.08.2024 submitted by the district administration.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner in possession of Plot Nos. 276 and 277 to the extent of his share, having a total area of approximately 2,850 sq. mtrs. The acquisition proceedings relate only to specified portions of the aforesaid plots, and the respondents are entitled to take possession only of the land actually acquired in accordance with law.

Learned Senior counsel further submits that this Court, by order dated 06.06.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 20054 of 2024, specifically directed the authorities to demarcate Plot Nos. 276 and 277 in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure and not to take possession until completion of the demarcation exercise. However, the demarcation carried out on 19.06.2024 was defective, as the revenue officials allegedly failed to distinguish the acquired land from the unacquired land by reference to fixed points prescribed for survey and demarcation, and relied upon a power pole and a wall instead of fixed reference points.

It is further submitted that the report dated 12.07.2024, supplied to the petitioner on 22.08.2024, contained incorrect findings regarding Plot No. 283, which neither belongs to the petitioner nor is in possession of the petitioner. The same belongs to other persons and is occupied by buildings and an educational institution. Learned senior advocate contends that the petitioner's land within the boundary wall comprises only of Plot Nos. 276 and 277, and the remaining portions of these plots have wrongly been shown as falling within Plot No. 283.

Learned Senior counsel also submits that the authorities are attempting to take possession of an area of Plot No. 277 exceeding the area acquired, while leaving an equivalent area of Plot No. 276, despite the petitioner's objection that a 275 KV high-tension electricity line passes over the latter plot No.276. Such an adjustment cannot be made unilaterally without following the procedure established by law.

It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has repeatedly approached the competent revenue authorities and filed detailed objections against the demarcation report, but the same have not been decided. Despite the pending objections, the respondents allegedly demolished the eastern-facing boundary wall on 29.11.2024. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the unacquired portion of Plot No. 277 and that the authorities be directed to undertake lawful demarcation and decide the petitioner's objections before taking further action.

Shri Dharmendra Srivastava, learned counsel for Respondent No.3, submitted that Respondent No. 3 is executing the aforesaid RRTS Corridor, a project of national importance aimed at providing efficient public transport and reducing traffic congestion and pollution in the National Capital Region.

Learned counsel submitted that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Khasra Nos. 276 and 277 were initiated under the Act of 2013, after following the prescribed procedure, and that the petitioner received the compensation awarded for the acquired land.

Furthermore, in compliance with the order dated 06.06.2024 passed in the petitioner's earlier writ petition, demarcation was conducted on 19.06.2024, and that Respondent No.3 has taken possession only of the acquired portions of Khasra Nos. 276 and 277. It is submitted that the petitioner is attempting to obstruct the construction of the RRTS Corridor by raising an untenable dispute.

Learned counsel submitted that the earlier measurement reports dated 05.06.2023 and 14.08.2024 contain consistent measurements, whereas the subsequent reports dated 08.01.2026 and 12.01.2026 disclose materially different figures without any satisfactory explanation. Respondent No.3 also raised objections to the subsequent measurement proceedings, particularly regarding the methodology adopted and the use of a crumpled revenue map.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the respodnent No.3 prayed that reliance be placed upon the earlier consistent measurement reports and that the petitioner's successive proceedings be rejected, as they are allegedly delaying a project of national importance and causing substantial public revenue loss.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the State respondents, submitted that the acquisition proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Act of 2013 and that possession was taken only of the area acquired under the award. Furthermore the latest report, which was prepared under the specific order of the Court, has been filed which should be taken into consideration while deciding the rival submissions of the parties.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records of the case. Based on the submission and records annexed, the following points of determination are framed for adjudication of the dispute.

The following points of determination are framed to adjudicate the issue in hand:

It transpires from the record that two plots of the petitioner, namely, Plot Nos. 276 and 277, were acquired by Respondent No. 3 for implementation of the RRTS Corridor project. The petitioner is not challenging the payment of compensation but is aggrieved by the manner in which the remaining portions of the two plots have been dealt with and seeks their demarcation. The dispute relates to the manner in which the land acquired by Respondent No. 3 has been taken into possession. The present dispute only relates to a factual dispute of demarcation of the remaining un-acquired area of plot Nos.276 and 277. Although the writ Courts ordinarily do not deal with issues of fact but in the present case there is a specific spot inspection report prepared as per the direction of the Court which has to be taken into consideration to decide the matter at hand.

There have been successive reports indicating different positions regarding the land actually taken into possession. The first two reports supported the stand of Respondent No. 3 that possession had been taken in accordance with the award. However, discrepancies were pointed out in the report dated 12.07.2024. Taking note of the said discrepancies, this Court passed the orders dated 17.03.2025 and 09.12.2025. Paragraph 2 of the latter order dated 09.12.2025 being relevant for deciding the dispute, is extracted hereinbelow:

In our considered view, any report prepared before 09.12.2025 loses its significance, as this Court had already found discrepancies which could only be resolved by obtaining a fresh demarcation report from the revenue officials.

The earlier reports dated 05.06.2023 and 14.08.2024, though consistent with each other, were prepared before this Court noticed the discrepancy in the maps by its order dated 17.03.2025. Mere consistency between those reports does not answer the discrepancy so noticed, which could be resolved only by a fresh measurement on the spot.

The report dated 12.01.2026, prepared pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2025, contained the relevant details, which are as under:

A perusal of the details mentioned in the report dated 12.01.2026 indicates that, in respect of Plot No. 276, the acquired area was 1,564 sq. mtrs, whereas Respondent No. 3 had taken physical possession of only 1,240 sq. mtrs, leaving 324 sq. mtrs yet to be taken into possession. However, in respect of Plot No. 277, against the acquired area of 320 sq. mtrs, Respondent No. 3 had taken possession of 644 sq. mtrs, thereby encroaching upon an additional area of 324 sq. mtrs.

The aforesaid survey conducted on 12.01.2026 disclosed the same position as that recorded in the demarcation exercise conducted on 22.12.2025. Thus, according to the latest report prepared pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2025, Respondent No. 3 had taken possession of less land in Plot No. 276 and more land in Plot No. 277 than the respective areas required to be acquired under the award.

Upon examination of the report, it appears that the dispute primarily concerns the additional land taken by Respondent No. 3 in Plot No. 277. The petitioner alleges that a high-tension wire passes over Plot No. 276, affecting the project of Respondent No. 3, and that, to compensate for the passage of the high-tension wire over Plot No. 276, Respondent No. 3 has taken additional land in Plot No. 277. This contention has been refuted by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3. Be that as it may, it appears to us that the dispute primarily concerns the factual position at the site.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the report prepared pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 09.12.2025. The fresh report has been placed before the Court and supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. The objections raised by Respondent No. 3 are that the land measurement conducted on 12.01.2026 was carried out by holding the revenue map in bare hands, causing it to become crumpled, and that the measurement was not conducted with due care and caution. In support of these objections, Respondent No. 3 has shown a letter dated 13.01.2026 addressed to the District Magistrate, Meerut, alleging errors in the report dated 12.01.2026 and expressing the apprehension that the land measurement may have been carried out by holding the revenue map in bare hands.

However, Respondent No. 3 has not sought a fresh demarcation report in its objections but has merely requested that the earlier reports be considered. This contention cannot be accepted because this Court had already noticed discrepancies in the earlier reports and, taking note of them, directed that a fresh report be prepared. Furthermore, when the first spot inspection was done on 22.12.2025, the respondent 3 raised an objection to the survey and upon that objection, a fresh survey was conducted on 12.01.2026 which found the position as same to the survey of 22.12.2025. Thus in essence, the objections of the respondent 3 were dealt with by the district administration itself. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the report dated 12.01.2026, submitted in a sealed cover pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2025, is the report to be considered for deciding the dispute.

While directing fresh demarcation by the revenue officials, this Court was conscious of the fact that the dispute involved a question of fact requiring physical verification of the land. Accordingly, the Court directed the constitution of a revenue team comprising the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut, to conduct a spot inspection and submit a report in accordance with the survey rules. Since the survey was conducted pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 09.12.2025, we do not find any illegality in the conduct of the revenue officials.

The objections raised by Respondent No. 3, therefore, become superfluous. Once the revenue team had been directed to demarcate the disputed area, it was required to carry out the exercise in accordance with law and without being influenced by any extraneous consideration.

In our view, the exercise carried out by the concerned revenue officials appears to be just and proper, and we see no reason to doubt the report submitted in the sealed cover. The report clearly states that Respondent No. 3 has taken possession of a lesser area in Plot No. 276 and a greater area in Plot No. 277 than the respective areas required to be acquired under the award.

As regards Issue (I), the report dated 12.01.2026 shows that in Plot No. 276 the acquired area was 1,564 sq. mtrs, whereas Respondent No. 3 has taken possession of only 1,240 sq. mtrs, that is, 324 sq. mtrs less. In Plot No. 277, against the acquired area of 320 sq. mtrs, Respondent No. 3 has taken possession of 644 sq. mtrs, that is, 324 sq. mtrs more. The point is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioner.

As regards Issue (II), the reports prepared before 09.12.2025 lost their significance, as this Court had already noticed discrepancies in them and had directed a fresh report. The report dated 12.01.2026, submitted in a sealed cover pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2025, was prepared by the revenue team constituted under the directions of this Court. The objections of Respondent No. 3 to it have been found to be superfluous. The said report is, therefore, the report to be relied upon for deciding the dispute.

Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the excess area of 324 sq. mtrs in Plot No. 277 shall be returned to the petitioner, and possession thereof shall be handed over to him forthwith by Respondent No. 3.

Respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to take possession of the remaining 324 sq. mtrs in Plot No. 276 in accordance with the award and the area acquired for the project.

If Respondent No. 3 intends to retain the additional land in Plot No. 277, adequate compensation shall be paid to the petitioner, the amount of which shall be determined by concerned authority in accordance with law, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

As regards the demolition of the eastern-facing boundary wall on 29.11.2024, no finding is recorded in this judgment, and the petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedy as is available to him in law.

The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. The petitioner's objections dated 19/20.09.2024 and 04.11.2024 stand disposed of in terms of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.