Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and another)

1. Heard Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. The instant writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to Re-Determine the Amount of Compensation based on award and judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.522 of 2009 and similarly situated other connected appeals, for the payment of compensation of the land of the petitioners acquired in the year 1988 for planned industrial development at NOIDA at enhanced rate of Rs.297/- per square yard and make the payment of difference of compensation of Rs.189/- per square yard for the area measuring 6671.33 square yard to the petitioners with interest @ 15% per annum in respect of the land situated in the Village Makanpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (Now Gautam Budh Nagar), which falls in Khata No.63/972 (Old Khata No.179), Khasra No.1246, 1247, 2471, 2489 area measuring 6671.33 sq. yard which was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, NOIDA vide notification dated 02.04.1988. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to decide the application dated 16.05.2025 under Section 28A of "Land Acquisition Act, 1894" read with Section 73 of "the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013" submitted by petitioners before him, within the stipulated time, if possible within a month (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition)."

3. While entertaining the writ petition on 11.07.2025, the Court had proceeded to pass the following order:- "1. Heard Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking re-determination of compensation for their agricultural land measuring 6671.33 square yards situated in Village Makanpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now Gautam Buddha Nagar), which was acquired in 1988 for planned industrial development at NOIDA under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act, 1894'). Initially, the petitioners were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.72/- per square yard, which was later enhanced to Rs.108/- per square yard. However, based on subsequent judicial pronouncements, particularly the judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in First Appeal No.522 of 2009 (Pradeep Kumar and State of U.P. and another) and connected appeals, similarly situated landowners were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard with 15% interest per annum. The petitioners, whose land falls within the same village and under the same notification dated 02.04.1988, were inadvertently left out of the said litigation and became aware of the enhanced compensation only recently. Thereafter, they submitted an application dated 16.05.2025 under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 read with Section 73 of the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act, 2013'), before the respondent authorities, seeking the same enhanced rate of compensation, along with the differential amount of Rs.189/- per square yard and accrued interest. The said application remains undecided.

3. At the very outset, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of bar of limitation. He submits that the land acquisition proceedings in question were initiated under the Act, 1894 in the year 1988, and that a notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17(A) of the said Act was duly issued. Subsequently, the declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was also issued within the stipulated time frame prescribed under the Act. He submits that since the award was made in the year 2016, the application of the petitioners dated 16.05.2025 is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under law and ought to have been filed within the time frame stipulated under Section 28A of the Act, 1894, as well as Section 73 of the the Act, 2013'.

4. Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submits that in the absence of any explanation of delay or any provision under the Land Acquisition Act permitting such condonation, the said application for reference is non-est in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition, seeking reliefs arising out of a time-barred reference, is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of inordinate delay and laches as the petitioners have failed to utilize the remedy available under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 in time.

5. At the request of Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is adjourned to enable him to address the issue of limitation and to file an appropriate rejoinder, if so advised.

6. Put up this matter again as fresh on 15.07.2025 along with records of Writ-C No.19374 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another)."

4. On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer for a direction to respondent no.3-Collector/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gautam Buddha Nagar to decide the application dated 16.05.2025 of the petitioners within stipulated period.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the authority concerned to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 SP/ SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. The instant writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to Re-Determine the Amount of Compensation based on award and judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.522 of 2009 and similarly situated other connected appeals, for the payment of compensation of the land of the petitioners acquired in the year 1988 for planned industrial development at NOIDA at enhanced rate of Rs.297/- per square yard and make the payment of difference of compensation of Rs.189/- per square yard for the area measuring 6671.33 square yard to the petitioners with interest @ 15% per annum in respect of the land situated in the Village Makanpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (Now Gautam Budh Nagar), which falls in Khata No.63/972 (Old Khata No.179), Khasra No.1246, 1247, 2471, 2489 area measuring 6671.33 sq. yard which was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, NOIDA vide notification dated 02.04.1988. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to decide the application dated 16.05.2025 under Section 28A of "Land Acquisition Act, 1894" read with Section 73 of "the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013" submitted by petitioners before him, within the stipulated time, if possible within a month (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition)."

3. While entertaining the writ petition on 11.07.2025, the Court had proceeded to pass the following order:- "1. Heard Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking re-determination of compensation for their agricultural land measuring 6671.33 square yards situated in Village Makanpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now Gautam Buddha Nagar), which was acquired in 1988 for planned industrial development at NOIDA under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act, 1894'). Initially, the petitioners were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.72/- per square yard, which was later enhanced to Rs.108/- per square yard. However, based on subsequent judicial pronouncements, particularly the judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in First Appeal No.522 of 2009 (Pradeep Kumar and State of U.P. and another) and connected appeals, similarly situated landowners were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard with 15% interest per annum. The petitioners, whose land falls within the same village and under the same notification dated 02.04.1988, were inadvertently left out of the said litigation and became aware of the enhanced compensation only recently. Thereafter, they submitted an application dated 16.05.2025 under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 read with Section 73 of the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act, 2013'), before the respondent authorities, seeking the same enhanced rate of compensation, along with the differential amount of Rs.189/- per square yard and accrued interest. The said application remains undecided.

3. At the very outset, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of bar of limitation. He submits that the land acquisition proceedings in question were initiated under the Act, 1894 in the year 1988, and that a notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17(A) of the said Act was duly issued. Subsequently, the declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was also issued within the stipulated time frame prescribed under the Act. He submits that since the award was made in the year 2016, the application of the petitioners dated 16.05.2025 is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under law and ought to have been filed within the time frame stipulated under Section 28A of the Act, 1894, as well as Section 73 of the the Act, 2013'.

4. Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submits that in the absence of any explanation of delay or any provision under the Land Acquisition Act permitting such condonation, the said application for reference is non-est in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition, seeking reliefs arising out of a time-barred reference, is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of inordinate delay and laches as the petitioners have failed to utilize the remedy available under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 in time.

5. At the request of Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is adjourned to enable him to address the issue of limitation and to file an appropriate rejoinder, if so advised.

6. Put up this matter again as fresh on 15.07.2025 along with records of Writ-C No.19374 of 2025 (Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another)."

4. On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer for a direction to respondent no.3-Collector/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gautam Buddha Nagar to decide the application dated 16.05.2025 of the petitioners within stipulated period.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the authority concerned to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 SP/ SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad