Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42109 of 2019 Petitioner :- Virendra Singh And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shatrughan Jee Pandey,Kuldeep Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
By means of this writ petition the petitioners have come up to this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act).The declaration of the said land under Section 6 of the Act is of 2002.
It is submitted that the possession has not been taken over of the land in question and compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and, therefore, the compensation be determined under the New Act.
Upon query being made as to why the petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and invoking of urgency Clause 17(1) and 17(4) which was done in 2000, no answer is forthcoming. What the petitioners say is that the land has not been taken over.
Sri H.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the UPSIDC-respondent no.4. Upon instruction, he submits that the acquisition proceedings have been finalized after an agreement under the Karar Niyamabali, 1997 having been entered in 2007 between the petitioners and the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the land was thereafter transferred to the UPSIDC on 24.9.2004. The land has fully been utilized and the factories etc. have been established and the petitioners have no reason to challenge the said proceedings after more than 17 years.
Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 to indicate that the said stale and belated claim should not be entertained by the High Court.
We have heard the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the UPSIDC- respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The petitioners have not been able to give any cogent reason to file this writ petition challenging the Notification issued in 2000 of acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act, in 2019.
The writ petition is barred by principles of laches and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 SKM (Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)