High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129710-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25373 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Golu Kumar Mishra,Samsad Ahmed Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Aditya Bhushan Singhal,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav holding brief of Sri Golu Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.B. Singhal and Abhay Pratap Singh for the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred, inter-alia, for the following relief:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 18.08.2011 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)/Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned possession memo dated 26.03.2009. c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declare entire acquisition proceeding stood lapsed by virtue of Section 11A of the act of 1894 in respect of Khasra No. 571 area 0.6960 hectares of Revenue Village- Salarpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. d) Any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii) Award cost of this petition to the petitioner." 3. At the outset, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel raises an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the acquisition is of the year 2009. 4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 17.01.2009 for planned industrial development in district Gautam Budh Nagar through Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'). Later on the State Government had also issued notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 24.02.2009. Both the notifications were published in daily newspaper. The notice under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1894 was also issued and later on as an urgency clause was invoked the possession was taken over and subsequently an award was also made way back on 18.8.2011.
Decision
5. In this backdrop he submits that at this belated stage the relief claimed is totally misconceived as admittedly the award was made way back on 18.8.2011. Urgency clause has been invoked and the possession was also taken over by the State Government way back on 26.3.2009 and the acquired land has also been handed over to the acquiring authority i.e. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority in the year 2009 for the planned development. It is further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 6. In Urban Development Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal & others, 2003 (1) AWC 73 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the maintainability of the writ petition against the land acquisition proceeding since the petition had been preferred challenging the land acquisition proceeding after two years of publication under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act and it was held that the same would not be maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted as under:- "..............It is apparent that the Notification under Section 4 was first published in the official gazette in June 1992. Thereafter substance was published in November 1992 at the conspicuous places and subsequently it was published in the local newspapers. Considering this sequence of publication, even if there is some delay, it would not mean that on this ground the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 require to be set aside. Similar view is expressed by this Court in State of Haryana and another v. Raghubir Dayal and others [(1995) 1 SCC 133 para 7]. Further, learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court ought to have dismissed the same. In the present case, as stated above, the Notification under section 6 was published in the Official Gazette on 24.5.1994. The writ petitions are virtually filed after two years. In a case where land is needed for a public purpose, that too for a scheme framed under the Urban Development Act, the Court ought to have taken care in not entertaining the same on the ground of delay as it is likely to cause serious prejudice to the persons for whose benefit the Housing Scheme is framed under the Urban Development Act and also in having planned development of the area. The law on this point is well settled. [Re. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria and others [(1996) 4 SCC 579] and Hari Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1984) 3 SCR 417]. In the result, the appeals filed by the Urban Improvement Trust are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos.270-277/97 etc. allowing the appeals and quashing the land acquisition proceedings is set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is restored. Civil Appeal No.5263/2001 filed by J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 7. Considering the factual situation and the relief prayed for, we find the objections so raised by the learned counsel for the respondent have force. Admittedly, the acquisition took place under the Act of 1894. The award was made on 18.8.2011, as the urgency clause was invoked. The hearing was dispensed with under Section 5A of the Act and later on the possession has also been brought on record by the petitioner himself dated 26.3.2009. No reason is assigned to substantiate the relief as has been prayed for. Admittedly, the possession was taken way back on 26.3.2009 and the award was also made on 18.8.2011. Once the possession was taken over the land has vested in the State and is free from all encumbrances. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of laches. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Ranjeet Sahu Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad