Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2.
According to the petitioner, the land in question, which was purchased by him through registered sale deed dated 12.1.2004, was acquired by the Director, Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur (respondent no.3) without following proper norms and steps prescribed by Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "1894 Act") and further no appropriate compensation has been paid for the same till date. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by notification under Sections 4 (1), 17 (4) and 17 (1) of the 1894 Act dated 19.7.2005 and 28.2.2006 and further prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of the compensation to the petitioner in terms of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
It appears that a notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) of the 1894 Act was issued on 19.7.2005. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of 1894 Act was issued on 28.2.2006 and the possession was taken on expiration of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice as no award under Section 11 has been made.
As per instructions received by the respondents dated 26.8.2019 from the District Magistrate, Unnao, final publication of notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of 1894 Act was published on 5.3.2006, by which total 5.204 hectare of land was published. Thereafter, a notice under Section 9 (1) read with Section 9 (3) of the 1893 Act was issued on 6.3.2006. Subsequently, the land owner had filed representation under Section 9 of the 1983 Act on 6.5.2006, which was decided by the competent authority and the possession of the land in question was received on 25.3.2006.
From perusal of the record, it reveals that no explanation has been given in the present writ petition regarding the delay of 13 years in filing the instant writ petition.
Considering the aforesaid so also the fact that after a period of thirteen years from the date of taking final possession of the land in question by the competent authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition without giving any explanation for filing the instant writ petition after such a long period, we are of the view that no relief as prayed for can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
With the aforesaid, the instant belated writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.) Order Date :- 30.8.2019 Ajit/-