Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37457 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyamveer And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The instant petition has been filed for a direction upon the third and fourth respondents to pay requisite compensation to the petitioners in view of acquisition of their land as also to correct the revenue records.
In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioners have made a statement that the respondents had constructed a road in the year 1995 over plot no. 433 area 0.077 hectare and plot no. 727 Ga area 0.133 hectare which belongs to the petitioners. It is stated that the land was taken without proper acquisition of land and without paying any compensation. It is stated that the land belonged to petitioners' father, who died in the year 2013. After his death, the petitioners have got right as his legal heirs.
On the averments made in the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel was required to seek instructions in the matter.
The learned Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions from the office of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Firozabad.
According to the stand of the respondents, the land was donated by the father of the petitioners way back in the year 1995 and a road was developed over the said land in the year 1995. It is stated that the father of the petitioners had remained alive till the year 2013 and he raised no objection to development of the road. It has also been stated that in the year 2003-04, the consolidation proceedings were initiated and the land has been shown as 'Sadak' (road).
The respondents have also placed reliance on a decision of the apex court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another : (2011) 15 SCC 383 so as to contend that belated claims in respect of compensation for acquisition of land should not ordinarily be entertained because it is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community. It was observed by the apex court that when they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the land holders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. It was observed by the apex court that when such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. The apex court observed that such belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of the apex court as also the fact that the petitioners have succeeded to the interest of their father who had remained alive till the year 2013 and raised no claim even though, admittedly, the road was constructed in the year 1995, we decline to entertain this petition. However, dismissal of this petition would be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to raise/pursue their objection, if any, as may be advised, in consolidation proceedings, if otherwise maintainable.
Subject to above, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari