Delhi-Dehradun Expressway update: HC verdict on Mandola house dispute expected on April 29
Delhi-Dehradun Expressway update: The Delhi-Dehradun Expressway is a big project meant to reduce travel time between Delhi and Uttarakhand. It is almost done but is delayed because of a long-standing land dispute in Mandola village, Ghaziabad. The issue started in 1998 when Veersen Saroha challenged the Uttar Pradesh Housing Board's decision to take his 1,600-square-metre land for the Mandola Housing Scheme. Most landowners accepted compensation, but Veersen and his family refused.
This led to a long court battle. After Veersen passed away, his grandson, Lakshyaveer, took the case to the Supreme Court in 2024. He is challenging the transfer of the land to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the expressway.
The case is now in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which will give its decision on April 29, 2025. This could remove the last legal barrier and allow the 14.7 km Akshardham to UP border and 16 km Loni to Khekra sections of the expressway to open.
Delhi-Dehradun Expressway: HC verdict on April 29, 2025 (Expected)
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court is now expected to deliver its verdict on April 29, 2025. The outcome will be important in resolving the dispute and for the opening of two key sections of the expressway. These sections include the 14.7 km stretch from Akshardham to the UP border and the 16 km stretch from Loni (Ghaziabad) to Khekra (Baghpat) on the Eastern Peripheral Expressway.
The Delhi-Dehradun Expressway project is being closely monitored by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Union Ministry. With 98% of the work already finished, the final legal decision is important for opening these sections on time. Once opened, they are expected to greatly reduce travel time for commuters.
Delhi-Dehradun Expressway: Farmers protest vs HC decision
Farmers in Mandola are still protesting the land acquisition. They are demanding higher compensation for the land they gave up in 1998. On April 25, a group of farmers locked the gates of the UP Housing Board's office in Ghaziabad. They cited delays in resolving their compensation issues. But, a Housing Board official says the land was acquired through due process. (as per TOI)
Delhi-Dehradun Expressway: Court proceedings and expectations
On April 16, 2025, the Allahabad High Court heard the case and gave the NHAI and UP Housing Board three days to file counter affidavits. The court stressed the urgency of resolving the issue due to the expressway's importance. (as per TOI)
The verdict is expected on April 29, which could allow for a partial opening. The project is being monitored by the Prime Minister's Office and the Union Ministry. It is highly expected that the expressway will open soon for faster travel between Delhi and Dehradun.
FAQs
1. What is the Mandola house dispute delaying the Delhi-Dehradun Expressway?
Answer: A legal fight over a two-storey house on a 1,600 square metre land in Mandola village near Ghaziabad is holding up the expressway's full opening. The house belonged to Veersen Saroha's family, who have refused to give up the land since 1998.
2. Why is this house important for the Delhi-Dehradun expressway project?
Answer: The house stands in the middle of the expressway route, blocking completion of a key ramp section. The NHAI needs this land to finish the expressway fully.
3. What is the current status of the Delhi-Dehradun legal case?
Answer: The case was moved to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court after the Supreme Court directed it there. The court is expected to give its verdict on April 29, 2025, which could clear the way for the expressway's opening.
4. Is the Delhi-Dehradun expressway already operational despite the dispute?
Answer: Yes, the main expressway is open and traffic flows smoothly. Only a 90-meter stretch of a service road near the disputed land is affected. A temporary bypass has been arranged to avoid disruption.
5. What compensation issues are involved in the Delhi-Dehradun expressway dispute?
Answer: The dispute began when the UP Housing Board tried to acquire the land in 1998 for a housing scheme, offering Rs 1,100 per square metre. Most landowners accepted, but Veersen's family disagreed and challenged the acquisition in court.
For more informative articles on historical and upcoming events from around the world, please visit Indiatimes Events.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC to hear afresh pleas against Maratha quota law from July 18
Mumbai: A special three-judge bench of Bombay high court will begin hearing afresh the challenges to state's latest iteration of the Maratha reservations on July 18. After the Supreme Court directive, HC, in May, constituted a new three-judge bench to hear the petitions, including those filed as public interest litigations, challenging the constitutional validity of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, which provides 10% reservation for the Maratha community in govt jobs and admissions to educational institutions. The state opposed the request for consideration of any interim relief. The new full bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar, and Sandeep Marne on Wednesday recorded submissions of advocate general Birendra Saraf. There were detailed arguments heard in 2024 on interim relief, after which there was an interim arrangement that all further admissions to educational institutions and employment would be subject to court orders. Saraf submitted that this has operated for over a year and that the request for fresh consideration of interim relief was unwarranted. Pradeep Sancheti, senior counsel for a petitioner, sought an earlier date. Other lawyers also argued, saying students who took admission last year were also affected and hence, were seeking interim orders. In May, Supreme Court asked HC to expeditiously hear the pleas, including applications by students appearing for the undergraduate and postgraduate National Eligibility cum Entrance Test of 2025. The students filed pleas seeking interim relief, claiming that a delay in the disposal of pleas was impacting their right to equal consideration in the admission process. The petitions were not fully heard when the then HC Chief Justice was transferred in Jan as Delhi high court Chief Justice. Supreme Court said if Bombay HC cannot hear the matter for final disposal then it may consider interim relief. HC has now fixed a schedule to hear the matter at length on the main challenge. Last July, HC had observed that the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission, headed by former HC judge Justice S B Shukre, was a necessary party to be heard in one of the PILs filed before it.
India Gazette
4 hours ago
- India Gazette
Karnataka HC reserves order on RCB marketing head's interim relief plea for June 12
Bengaluru (Karnataka) [India], June 11 (ANI): The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday reserved the order on the petition filed by RCB's marketing head Nikhil Sosale, seeking interim relief on the ground that his arrest in alleged connection with the Bengaluru stampede was illegal. The High Court reserved the order for June 12 at 2:30 pm. Earlier today, both parties submitted their arguments in front of the Court. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the state government in the HC, said, 'My submission is that relief sought under Article 226 is impressible unless lordships declare arrest is illegal and petition is not maintainable.' 'Legality of arrest is to be considered, from the facts we have presented, the legality of arrest,' Advocate General said. 'Statement made by CM has nothing to do with the arrest. Look at the grounds of arrest of each of the accused, milord. The petitioner was fleeing,' he said. The AG further claimed that organisers were responsible for the stampede that claimed the lives of 11 people. 'Even assuming arrest is illegal, only a WHPC is maintainable and not a petition under Section 482. Grounds of arrest are to be given at the earliest, and in the instant case, they have been supplied,' Shetty said. The Advocate General also mentioned that Sosale is not in their custody but in judicial custody. The Karnataka HC questioned the state government, 'Who has to obtain the license? They are employees of the company. Don't look at them as the company.' Replying to this, the AG said that the company act through its directors. 'On behalf of the company, petitioners are supposed to take a license. It is for them to show that they are not responsible,' he said. The High Court emphasised that the court will look at them as individuals, not as a company. 'We will not identify the company with an individual. Leave this company aside. Let us look at them as individuals,' the Court said. The HC further asked, 'How do you know who is responsible today?' Advocate General Shetty said, 'He was fleeing away, milord, and he admits that he was taking care of the affairs of the company.' The HC said, 'Before you arrested these people and grounds of arrest were furnished. Your submission is those are the reasons why you arrested him as a person responsible for the event.' Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, representing the RCB marketing head, said, 'According to them, the person who was invited for the celebration has been arrested. You have suspended police officials. But even DyCM has been invited.' 'That is an incorrect submission, milord. The invitation is only by RCB,' the Advocate General countered. A day after the stampede that claimed the lives of 11 people, the Karnataka police suspended multiple IPS officers, including the Bengaluru city police Commissioner, B Dayananda. (ANI)
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
HC to hear afresh pleas against Maratha reservation from July 18
A three-judge bench of the Bombay High Court Wednesday said that it will hear afresh from July 18 a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2024 law providing Maratha reservation. The bench noted that the state government's submission that an interim order passed last year that any applications for admissions to educational institutions or jobs at government authorities taking benefit of the impugned Act will be subject to further orders in the present proceedings still continues, therefore, it was inclined to conduct the final hearing on the pleas. The Supreme Court on May 13 had asked HC to expeditiously hear the pleas including application by students appearing for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) undergraduate and postgraduate exams of 2025. The students filed pleas seeking interim relief, claiming that a delay in the disposal of pleas was impacting their right to equal consideration in the admission process. The pleas were not heard after the then Bombay HC Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya's transfer as the CJ of Delhi HC in January this year. Justice Upadhyaya was part of a full or three-judge bench, which since April, last year, had been hearing the pleas against the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) Act, 2024 that provided 10 per cent reservation in education and government jobs to the Maratha community. The petitioners' arguments concluded on October 14, 2024. Two days after the SC order, the Bombay HC, on May 15, constituted a new three-judge bench/full bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar, and Sandeep V Marne, which heard the pleas on Wednesday. The 2024 law, which provided 10 per cent reservation in education and government jobs to the Maratha community that constitutes nearly one-third of Maharashtra's population, had been at the forefront of political discourse last year during the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. Senior advocate Pradeep Sancheti, for the petitioner students, argued that education and career of thousands of students appearing for NEET exams will be affected if the interim relief of stay on the effect of the 2024 law was not granted to them. However, Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, submitted that an interim order was issued by the HC on April 16, last year, and the same continued even till date, and the same was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. Saraf argued that the same interim order will apply to the petitioner students, and their admissions will be subject to further orders passed by the HC. He also submitted that interim relief cannot be sought by filing fresh petitions while the interim arrangement was made last year and the same continued from time to time. The full bench led by Justice Ghuge then expressed 'inclination to commence the final hearing of the matter' and said it will begin the same on July 18.
