Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27783 of 2019 Petitioner :- Somdutt Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Singh,Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Per: Hon’ble Prakash Padia J.
1. Heard Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-
“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation of the land Plot No.1506/1 having area 0.11 acre equivalent to 650 square meters situate at Village Mau, Pargana Mau, District Banda now District Chitrakoot within a period of time specified by this Hon’ble Court.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the illegal possession over the land of 1 biswa of remaing of Plot No.1506/1 situate at Village Mau, Pargana Mau, District Banda now District Chitrakoot.”
3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitoner alleged that the land of the predecessor in interest namely Plot No.1506/1 area 0.11 acre (0-5-0) situate at village Mau, Pargana Mau, District Banda (Now District Chitrakoot) was acquired by the State Government by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894) invoking the urgency clause as contemplated under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894 on 30.11.1948 for the purpose of constructions of Rest House, Gang Hut Nursery and Malli Hut. Notices under Section 9 of the Act, 1894 was issued to the tenure holders for filing objections. One such notice was issued in the month of March, 1949 which is appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
4. It is contended that no notice was individually served upon the tenure holders and only general information at public place was issued. It is further contended that Form 11 was prepared by the Special Land Acquisition on 17.2.1951. It is further contended that in the aforesaid Form 11, the name of predecessor in interest of the petition was not included in determining the compensation. It is contended that predecessor in interest of the petitioner was very illiterate persons and had no knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings. It is contemplated that when the proceedings for mutation were filed by the Public Works Department, the petitioner submitted his objection on 26.03.2010. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it is contended that from perusal of the record it transpires that the land is still in the name of the petitioner and no proceeding for determination of compensation has taken place. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a report dated 13.02.2003 submitted by the Public Works Department in respect of actual position of the details of Plot No.1506/1.
5. It is contended that the petitioner repeatedly represented his cause before the authorities but no response has been taken by the authorities on the representations submitted by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a report submitted by the Revenue Officials dated 23.9.2017 stating therein that over the land, the name of the petitioner is still continuing but there was a Daak Bungalow of the of public works department, copy of the aforesaid report dated 23.9.2017 is appended as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. In this view of the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to direct the second respondent/Public Works Department through its Executive Officer to pay compensation of the land/Plot No.1506/1, area 0.11 acre equivalent to 652 square meters situated at Village Mau, Pargana Mau, District Banda (Now District Chitrakoot) with the further prayer to direct the respondents to remove illegal possession over the land of one biswa of the aforesaid plot.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
6. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the land in dispute was acquired by the State Government way back in the year 1948-49. The submission of the petitioner is that land is still in the name of the petitioner and no compensation has been paid till date. In this regard, we are of the opinion that once the land has been acquired by the State Government as per provisions of Act, 1894 way back in the year 1948-49, after expiry of more than 70 years, no orders can be passed by this Court for dispossession over the land in dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further we have perused the aforesaid report dated 23.9.2017. From perusal of the same, it is clear that on the land in dispute, a Daak Bungalow is in existence from last 50 years and the same is in the possession of the Public Works Department.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383, has held as follows:
"12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. 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 as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. 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 landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. 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. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may." There is no explanation for the delay on part of the petitioner in approaching the court after a lapse of such delay time.”
8. In view of above, we are of the opinion that this petition is not only devoid of merits but also suffers from delay and latches. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019/saqlain