Mithlesh Kumar Maurya v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

#1. Heard Sri Mithlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

#2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the public notice dated 29.6.2025 published in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran. Alternatively, prayer is made to direct the respondent no. 3 and 4 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.09.2025 within some stipulated time.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the public notice under Section 21(1) and (2) of The Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'Act, 2013) was issued on 23.6.2025 and all persons interested in the land were required to appear personally or by agent or Advocate before the Collector till 5 p.m. of 26.7.2025. He submits that on account of medical exigency, the petitioner could not file objection well within stipulated time and the objection was filed on 18.8.2025. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon Section 21(2) of the Act, 2013, which provides that the public notice published by the Collector must specify the land needed for 2 WRIC No. 33241 of 2025 acquisition and require all interested parties to appear before the Collector, either in person or through a representative, within a period of not less than thirty days and not more than six months from the date of the notice's publication. In this backdrop, he submits that admittedly, the petitioner failed to file objection within 30 days as per notice but the same is very well maintainable as the outer limit is six months in view of the aforesaid provision. He lastly submits that in the instant case, the award has not been made till date and at this stage, in case the objection of the petitioner has not been considered by the Authority, definitely, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

#4. Per contra, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel resisted the relief and submitted that the Act, 2013 is a self- contained Act. Admittedly, the notice under Section 21 (1) and (2) of the Act, 2013 had been issued on 23.06.2025 inviting an objection well within 30 days. Admittedly, the alleged objection had been filed beyond the time, which was prescribed in the notice. He submits that in the catena of judgements the law is well settled that under the acquisition proceedings, the time limit cannot be extended beyond the statutory period. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Vijay Pal v. The State of U.P. & Ors. 2010 SCC Online All 1856.

#5. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we have occasion to have a glance of provisions contained under Section 21 of the Act, 2013. For ready reference, Section 21 of the Act, 2013 is reproduced herein below:- "21. Notice to persons interested.-(1) The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) The public notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent or advocate before the Collector at a time and place mentioned in the public notice not being less than thirty days and not more than six months after the date of publication of the notice, and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, their claims to rehabilitation and resettlement along with their objections, if any, to the measurements made under section 20. 3 WRIC No. 33241 of 2025 (3) The Collector may in any case require such statement referred to in sub-section (2) to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (4) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier, if any, of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situated. (5) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the Collector shall ensure that the notice shall be sent to him by post in letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address of place or business and also publish the same in at least two national daily newspapers and also on his website."

#6. In the instant matter, it is not in dispute that the public notice was issued on 23.06.2025 indicating therein that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him. It is also not in dispute that in view of the provisions under Section 21 (2) of the Act, 2013, the public notice referred to in sub-section (1) also reflected the particulars of the land so needed and require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent or advocate before the Collector at a time and place mentioned in the public notice not being less than thirty days. It is pressed before us that the petitioner was well conversant with the notice, wherein the objection was to be filed within thirty days and on account of the medical exigency, he could not file any objection well within stipulated time.

#7. In the case of Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 695, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there cannot be any dispute to the proposition that in land acquisition proceeding a tenure holder cannot be allowed to challenge the land acquisition proceeding after lapse of a reasonable time and the Court will not interfere with the land acquisition when the challenge is made with unexplained delay.

#8. As the petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent that his representation may be decided well within time, otherwise he would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

#9. As it is informed that till date the award has not been made, we find that the representation of the petitioner is to be considered and decided by the 4 WRIC No. 33241 of 2025 District Magistrate, Kaushambi (respondent no.2) strictly in accordance with law, in case there is no other impediment in the matter.

#10. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2025 A.K.Srivastava (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad